One of the best kept secret and one that he should have tried is "Kate".
Good old style editor that is a native app, not an electron app. All the features that you might want and more, but simple and efficient.
And the most important for me, super snappy. I can't bear the latency that you get for typing code when using things like vscode. I don't know how people can appreciate that.
I know this is just one data point, but I don't notice any latency when typing code in VS Code. It takes a while to start up, and that is annoying especially for quick short editing jobs, but other than that I never notice any sluggishness. Is this something many people experience?
Zed is fantastic for Rust, C, C++, and similar languages.
I wouldn't bother using it for Web things like HTML, Js, CSS, because it simply isn't better at that than VSCode. Same goes for C# -- as a Microslop technology, you're better off using Microslop tooling.
Firing up VSCode on an old laptop, and having it get totally bogged down running a text editor killed a part of my soul. I'm from the vim era of computing, but I have a hard time telling people that's the route to go today with today's tools.
Classic electron app. vscode is no doubt a powerful tool but it and other apps in the modern milieu are the software equivalent of those big lifted trucks that like to "roll coal" and get like 5mpg highway.
This feels like two steps up from a highly customized vim config. But I want one step up.
I want to be able to piece together an editor from modular task specific executables. Different programs for file searching, input mapping, buffer modification and display, etc.
Probably similar to how LSPs are already separated from most editors.
One step less hardcore than writing a whole editor.
Anyone know of any existing projects along these lines?
It steps back from the “customize everything” mantra, believing that approach leaves users with an underdeveloped essential system. But it still has two major APIs: one for window manipulation [2], the other for text-based integration with the surrounding system via plumber [3].
All textual CLI tools (that is, those without pseudographics) work by default and are the heart of its style.
I use Acme for everything except web browsing (although most links are still managed by Acme).
I use my own editor too. I modified an existing editor to my own needs. But I do use VSC as well for multi file projects. My editor can load images as well and has a scripting language to manipulate images. I primarily use it to edit my website, which is a static website in bare HTML. It also has some 'browser' functions in the sense that F5 opens a link including jumping to an anker if there is one in the link. It does have colour coding for HTML that also checks for matching tags.
I use my own text editor too, written using my own programming language. Fortunately Operating Systems suit my needs and I won't have to write my own OS ;-)
- Software is simpler than you think when you boil it down. There's a massive incentive to over-sell the complexity of the problem a solution is trying to solve, to pull in users. This is true both for proprietary products and, to a lesser degree, FOSS. You can probably replace most of the tools you use day-to-day in a weekend or two - provided you keep practising the art of just building stuff. I'm not saying that you should, but it's worth keeping in the back of your head if a tool is driving you mad.
- You can achieve 80% of the functionality with 20% of the work required to build an off-the-shelf solution. In a surprising number of cases, you can do the same with 20% of the integration cost of an off-the-shelf solution. A lot of software is - to put it quite bluntly - shit (I include a lot of my own libraries in this list!). There are probably only a few hundred really valuable reusable software components out there.
- Aggressively chase simplicity and avoid modularity if you want to actually achieve anything. The absolute best way to never get anything useful out of a project is to start off by splitting it into a dozen components/crates/repositories. You will waste 75% of your time babysitting the interfaces between the components rather than making the thing work.
- Delete code, often. If you look at the repo activity (https://git.jsbarretto.com/zesterer/zte/activity/code-freque...) you'll see that I'm deleting code almost as much as I'm adding it, especially now that I've got the core nailed down. This is not wasted effort: your first whack at solving a problem is usually filled with blunders so favour throwaway code that's small enough to keep in your head when the time comes to bin it and make it better.
- It is absolutely critical that you understand the fundamental mode of operation of the code you've already written if you want to maintain development velocity. As John Backus said, programming is theory-building and the most important aspect of a program is the ineffable model of it you hold in your head. Every other effort must be in deference to maintaining the mental model.
> Cursor manipulation is difficult! When you’re using a text input widget, much of the behaviour you expect as table-stakes isn’t something you’re even conscious of. Exactly what happens when you hold a keybinding like ctrl + shift + left is probably muscle memory but the logic required to getting it all playing together nicely is not fun to write.
This is so true. And there are a lot of other cases where we just expect the OS or library to do it for us. Instead, we have to reimplement the wheel. Of course if understanding the wheel is part of the goal, then that works, but if you’re venture-backed good luck justifying the use of time to your investors. This is why Electron’s gravity is so strong.
That is certainly true! If your target is end users, use the off the shelf solution that has been inspected by many eyeballs. The best part of building tools for yourself or a small community of people is that you only need to cover the relatively tiny subset of functionality that you actually use.
I would recommend using the ropey crate for easy performance gains. A string buffer is quick to implement but you will hit a wall as soon as you need to edit large files.
Unmentioned in the post, but I have since switched to a third-party rope library (crop, not ropey). At some point I'd like to implement one myself, but for now this does the job.
It's not that bad. You need really large files to notice.
The largest realistic file I'll ever touch - sqlite3 amalgamation with 270k lines and 9.1 kB - still takes only 6 ms to memmove it on my poor laptop.
Any regular up-to 10k lines file is memmoved in order of microseconds.
Yes, absolutely. I've since switched to rope-backed buffers, but I don't think the rope itself is actually adding much from a performance standpoint, even for really very large files.
We talk about big-O complexity a lot when talking about things like this, but modern machines are scarily good at copying around enormous linear buffers of data. Shifting even hundreds of megabytes of text might not even be visible in your benchmark profiling, if done right.
When benchmarking, I discovered that the `to_pos`/`to_coord` functions, which translate between buffer byte positions and screen coordinates, were by far the heaviest operation. I could have solved that problem entirely simply by maintaining a list of line offsets and binary-searching through it.
That's true for code editing, but it's nice to not have to reach for a different solution when editing huge files. Sometimes I like to open up big log files, JSON test data, etc.
Good old style editor that is a native app, not an electron app. All the features that you might want and more, but simple and efficient.
And the most important for me, super snappy. I can't bear the latency that you get for typing code when using things like vscode. I don't know how people can appreciate that.
I wouldn't bother using it for Web things like HTML, Js, CSS, because it simply isn't better at that than VSCode. Same goes for C# -- as a Microslop technology, you're better off using Microslop tooling.
For coding, I'm still stuck with VSCode and nvim.
Syntax coloring, fast buffering and even a screen saver.
You could even call the compiler directly from it.
All this running on a pentium 120 and it felt a thousands times faster than today's vscode.
But vscode can edit multiple files at the same time...
borland turbo pascal and turbo c could also open multiple files at the same time.
https://git.jsbarretto.com/zesterer/zte
I want to be able to piece together an editor from modular task specific executables. Different programs for file searching, input mapping, buffer modification and display, etc. Probably similar to how LSPs are already separated from most editors.
One step less hardcore than writing a whole editor.
Anyone know of any existing projects along these lines?
It steps back from the “customize everything” mantra, believing that approach leaves users with an underdeveloped essential system. But it still has two major APIs: one for window manipulation [2], the other for text-based integration with the surrounding system via plumber [3].
All textual CLI tools (that is, those without pseudographics) work by default and are the heart of its style.
I use Acme for everything except web browsing (although most links are still managed by Acme).
[1]: http://youtu.be/dP1xVpMPn8M
[2]: http://9p.io/magic/man2html/4/acme
[3]: http://9p.io/sys/doc/plumb.html
Sometimes I get surprise questions from my friends whenever they see my screen. “What’s that?” “That’s my own text editor!”
I’ve also written my own terminal emulator and my own shell. The shell does actually see other contributors and users these days too.
Did anything in your approach change how you think about everyday tooling?
- Software is simpler than you think when you boil it down. There's a massive incentive to over-sell the complexity of the problem a solution is trying to solve, to pull in users. This is true both for proprietary products and, to a lesser degree, FOSS. You can probably replace most of the tools you use day-to-day in a weekend or two - provided you keep practising the art of just building stuff. I'm not saying that you should, but it's worth keeping in the back of your head if a tool is driving you mad.
- You can achieve 80% of the functionality with 20% of the work required to build an off-the-shelf solution. In a surprising number of cases, you can do the same with 20% of the integration cost of an off-the-shelf solution. A lot of software is - to put it quite bluntly - shit (I include a lot of my own libraries in this list!). There are probably only a few hundred really valuable reusable software components out there.
- Aggressively chase simplicity and avoid modularity if you want to actually achieve anything. The absolute best way to never get anything useful out of a project is to start off by splitting it into a dozen components/crates/repositories. You will waste 75% of your time babysitting the interfaces between the components rather than making the thing work.
- Delete code, often. If you look at the repo activity (https://git.jsbarretto.com/zesterer/zte/activity/code-freque...) you'll see that I'm deleting code almost as much as I'm adding it, especially now that I've got the core nailed down. This is not wasted effort: your first whack at solving a problem is usually filled with blunders so favour throwaway code that's small enough to keep in your head when the time comes to bin it and make it better.
- It is absolutely critical that you understand the fundamental mode of operation of the code you've already written if you want to maintain development velocity. As John Backus said, programming is theory-building and the most important aspect of a program is the ineffable model of it you hold in your head. Every other effort must be in deference to maintaining the mental model.
But I am now at home with Helix and Flow Control.
This is so true. And there are a lot of other cases where we just expect the OS or library to do it for us. Instead, we have to reimplement the wheel. Of course if understanding the wheel is part of the goal, then that works, but if you’re venture-backed good luck justifying the use of time to your investors. This is why Electron’s gravity is so strong.
We talk about big-O complexity a lot when talking about things like this, but modern machines are scarily good at copying around enormous linear buffers of data. Shifting even hundreds of megabytes of text might not even be visible in your benchmark profiling, if done right.
When benchmarking, I discovered that the `to_pos`/`to_coord` functions, which translate between buffer byte positions and screen coordinates, were by far the heaviest operation. I could have solved that problem entirely simply by maintaining a list of line offsets and binary-searching through it.