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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by nicoburns »

franze wrote: post #14

made me think about my NEED of what I have regarding terminals. I think I am using about 2% of the potential of what the terminal is offering me. So my need for a new terminal app would be one which - undisruptive - trains me to unlock more and more power of the terminal. first idea, a panel on the right hand side which explains what I just did, highlights pot improvements (how I could have chained the last 5 tasks)…

I would like:

- Better support for multiline editing. Including full mouse support so that I can click to highlight a word in the command I want to replace rather than having to slowly arrow key to it and then backspace it out. And automatically stripping the newlines so I don't have to end every line with a backslash.

- Support for things like multiple cursors, again so that I can edit my terminal commands efficiently.

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

#62

Post by jrh206 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #59
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. Thi…

The OP is very negative in tone[1], although curious. I think the person you’re responding to provided a solid answer to OP’s question, whilst imbuing their answer with a reasonable response to OP’s tone.

[1] "(badly)", "always some startup with no good will", "Electron" (arguably), "filled it full of always-online trackers"

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

#63

Post by Kelteseth »

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.

Not with Qt6/CMake/QML. For example, I've been developing a cross-plattform live wallpaper app for the last 5 years alone: https://screen-play.app/

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

#64

Post by jamincan »

Youden wrote: post #54
di4na wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't use Amarok, but looking at screenshots, it looks similar to other Qt applications on Windows that seem to sit in this uncanny valley of coming quite close to looking native, but just different enough to feel strange. I also don't use the Spotify app, but it seems from screenshots to do a better job of appearing like a native Windows 10 application to me.

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

#65

Post by junon »

I think it's in large part due to Hyper's original successes (that's Vercel's (fml. ZEIT) Electron-based terminal emulator, one of - if not THE - first of its kind).

There was a lot of hype built around it at the time, and a lot of people that used and believed in it. I think a lot of people saw that and thought "I could market that".

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

#66

Post by Kelteseth »

nicoburns wrote: post #57
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?

I think QT has two problems: 1. It's based on C++. 2. The licensing makes it very expensive for non-open-source applications.

Small correction: 2. The licensing makes it very expensive for non-open-source applications that are unable to comply with the restrictions of the LGPLv3.

As stated _many_ times: Qt can be used via LGPLv3 in commercial software. Only a few components like QtQuick3d are GPLv3 only.

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

#67

Post by junon »

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?

> Did Qt do such a good job of driving people away from it?

Yes, they did, with their hostile licensing changes and the fact that you cannot customize it as much as you can Electron apps.

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

#68

Post by junon »

anonymoushn wrote: post #55
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.

Yep, look at Wezterm. It's what you're thinking of.

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

#70

Post by BiteCode_dev »

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 talent pool and ecosystem is a rounding error compared to what we have with the web ecosystem. If you want to make something with medias, graphs, a few custom widgets, a reactive layout and deep routing, it will take 10 to 30 times longer with QT.

I myself prefer the snapiness of QT apps, but budget and time to market will win.

Post reply on HN