Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#51

Post by di4na »

Kelteseth wrote: post #47
di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. Why do people constantly repeat this? Did we all forget about Qt? Did Qt do such a good job of driving people away from it?

Yes. Because the experience of building something with QT that looks good and work cross platform is like pulling your own teeth.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#53

Post by jim180 »

di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true.

For developer? Maybe. For user? No way.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#54

Post by Youden »

di4na wrote: post #51
Kelteseth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. Why do people constantly repeat this? Did we all forget about Qt? Did Qt do such a good job of driving people away from it?

Yes. Because the experience of building something with QT that looks good and work cross platform is like pulling your own teeth.

I'd substitute "looks good" for "looks like a web application".

Taking music players for an example, I prefer the way Amarok (Qt) looks compared to something like Amazon Music or Spotify.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#55

Post by anonymoushn »

di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

I suspect if it's for a terminal emulator the "multi-platform UI platform" you need is OpenGL or something.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#56

Post by baisq »

Kelteseth wrote: post #47
di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. Why do people constantly repeat this? Did we all forget about Qt? Did Qt do such a good job of driving people away from it?

Qt costs money and is as native as electron.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#57

Post by nicoburns »

Kelteseth wrote: post #47
di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. Why do people constantly repeat this? Did we all forget about Qt? Did Qt do such a good job of driving people away from it?

I think QT has two problems:

1. It's based on C++.

2. The licensing makes it very expensive for non-open-source applications.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#58

Post by mnd999 »

jim180 wrote: post #53
di4na wrote: post #25

For market no idea. For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For why, because the terminal protocol is atrocious, mix data with control signalling, mix together multiple layers making it really hard to extend it, is stuck emulating an emulator of a physical device from the 70s, is bursting at the seams and is blocking dozens of possi…

> For electron, because it is the only reasonable multi platform UI platform out there. I do not like that fact but it is true. For developer? Maybe. For user? No way.

Quite, I guess developers like that electron looks equally wrong everywhere? There’s teams of smart people at Apple, Microsoft, GNOME, KDE and other environments that spend a lot of time making things consistent (okay, perhaps not MS) so that users know intuitively how things work. Why throw all that away?

Not to mention it spins up an entire chrome process for every app? And doesn’t work on natively wayland?

It’s hard not to conclude that devs working this way hate their users.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#59

Post by Brian_K_White »

serjester wrote: post #33

Can we acknowledge that just because we don’t have a particular problem, doesn’t mean other people won’t? Will these companies be profitable? I have no idea. No one does. But I don’t understand this sentiment unless you’re being forced to use their product. When you start investing you quickly realize how difficult it is to gauge a “good” idea. The only thing that matters is how the market responds and it seems like…

It's your choice to read that question as either curiosity or complaint.

I don't see anything in the question that exactly says "get this crap off my screen" "these companies should not be allowed to exist". I see a critical opinion but that is entirely allowed. Your critical opinion like the one you just wrote is presumably allowed.

But I do see an observance of phenomenon, and I find any phenomenon interesting.

This post is a perfectly valid question, just at it's academic face value.

Re: Ask HN: Why are there so many companies trying to reinvent the terminal (badly)?

#60

Post by [deleted] »

georgehill wrote: post #12

What is the problem with that ? I've tried both warp.dev and fig.io, except thier annoying telementry events, I love them both. Developers use terminals frequently, and there have been no major improvements in terminal software in the last few years. I'd be happy to see more terminals developed because they are useful. I would rather encourage them than discourage it

[deleted]
Post reply on HN