this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
201 points (95.9% liked)
Programming
17432 readers
250 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agreed. It's weird to put the performance of a text editor at the center of PR.
I have sooooo many questions.
Why do they compare a text editor's performance with that of IDEs??? CLion is possibly the slowest of all Jetbrains IDEs because the C++ language is very complex. Choosing CLion makes even less sense because IntelliJ is now public-testing a lightweight C++ CLion spinoff, which is faster than CLion.
Why should I care whether my editor is written with Rust? C was fine as long as I trust the devs on security. Async doesn't matter at all to the enduser...
Besides, if I wanted a snappy editor I just use vim.
My fear is that they might have concluded that all the performance boost they made wasn't important as a text editor, and they are presenting some weird comparison to hide it.
Besides, if you write C++, the bottleneck is not the typing response, but the code analyzer.
It's also not like C++ is a language used by majority of customers. Why not advertise with JavaScript instead? Python? Those are also better fit for text editors. Because statically typed languages like C++ can benefit hugely from a full-fledged IDEs, taking away the room for this text editor further.
It feels like their AI integration is not outstanding (probably not, indeed).
The collaborative editing might not align well with their emphasis on responsiveness, either, because the network latency will be felt. Not to mention that collaborative editing is pioneered by IntelliJ, also.
Why do you need another channel/chat management tool if your team already has a Slack? Why would your team use a chat platform that can be used only by mac users?
As I indicated in my other comment, it's possible that the PC port of their GPUI-based GUI can be far slower due to the heave reliance on Apple Silicon. I even doubt a port is possible in the first place, especially if their code heavily relies on Apple-specific APIs for the Silicon.
And all descriptions of their features are suspiciously vague. How are they better than a marketing scheme to raise the stock price?
Maybe it is going to be just an average editor in the era of remote-office (looking at channels and collab edit), ChatGPT-assists (AI-integration) and async. Maybe it's a proof-of-concept that will soon give ways to another generation of editors.