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

Fine, I'll build my own text editor

dbushell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 267 posts

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#231

Post by nxc18 »

jotato wrote: post #181
nxc18 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as large? There can be some perf issues if you don’t exclude node_modules and build outputs from search, but I’ve never seen it crash.

It was a mono repo with 30+ projects Most were react apps. I’m going to guess at least 5000 files in the repo. And yes, node_modules was excluded.

I’m sorry you had a bad experience.

The monorepo I work in has 2-5x as large (depending on how you count) and I don’t see crashes or major performance issues. Even when bloated with plugins (testing, GitHub PRs, formatters, copilot, vim emulation, codelens turned on, etc). And I have an older presumably slower Mac.

I wonder what the difference is.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#232

Post by argee »

kqp wrote: post #187

Seems to me that in the short term everybody screams “DO NOT OPTIMIZE THAT CODE”, in the medium term everybody shrugs “buy a new computer”, and in the long term everybody gradually migrates to the solutions that optimized that code. I think the mainstream narrative around performance optimization is simply wrong. Inefficiency isn’t a constant, it’s a percentage. You look at software that’s 10x as fast and say yours w…

> The idea that optimization matters less over time is short-term thinking.

The more you think about things and the deeper you investigate, the closer you get to realizing that most aphorisms, advice, and even "facts" are a combination of best-effort philosophy and selection biases from the lowest common denominator. Add in the Barnum effect and you end up with an ocean of inconsequential platitudes being parroted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

It's very difficult, requires active effort, and goes against human nature to act rationally. Most people don't even want to do it.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#233

Post by genxy »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #227
cestith wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like he's discounting Lisp, Scheme, OCaml, and Haskell in favor of something that's more of a safer, fresher take on the C language for his target group. The real competition for a language like Go these days are Rust, Zig, maybe D or Swift. Python, Fortran, JS, TypeScript, PHP, Julia, and such are mostly used in other niches. Common Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml, Objective Pascal, Ada, and several more ar…

Rust development was already in the air a bit at the time that Go made its debut. And in a shape at the time that was arguably more Go-shaped than what it became (did not have borrow checker yet, and had a managed runtime and GC option as well I think). I personally think hubris led to Pike not working with others in the industry and Go bears the stamps of some very unfortunate idiosyncratic decisions as a result. Th…

Rust with a GC would give you this.

You might like https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01841v4

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#234

Post by MisterTea »

andsoitis wrote: post #168
dist-epoch wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He created Go because he believed that the average Google programmer is too stupid to program in C++, and he didn't like Java, the other language created to address this problem.

> He created Go because he believed that the average Google programmer is too stupid to program in C++, and he didn't like Java, the other language created to address this problem. It is more nuanced than that. Created Go because: a) C++ deemed excessively and unnecessarily complex, overloaded with features, increasingly difficult to manage b) Very slow compilation times c) Wanted a language with built-in concurrency…

e) provided a Plan 9 like cross compiler using the Inferno tooling to target any supported platform, out of the box.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#235

Post by 12_throw_away »

ithkuil wrote: post #210
IAmBroom wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also a correlation between having strong opinions and just being a dick. Imagining yourself the next Richard Dawkins is a fulltime occupation for a lot of smart kids.

Sounding and being are not the same thing. I don't want to insult Mr. Pike and claim he is a dick just because how some of his quotes sound.

> Sounding and being are not the same thing.

I'm familiar with his stated opinions regarding both generics, and syntax highlighting. They check both the "sounding" and "being" boxes quite nicely.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#236

Post by Jtsummers »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #227
cestith wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like he's discounting Lisp, Scheme, OCaml, and Haskell in favor of something that's more of a safer, fresher take on the C language for his target group. The real competition for a language like Go these days are Rust, Zig, maybe D or Swift. Python, Fortran, JS, TypeScript, PHP, Julia, and such are mostly used in other niches. Common Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml, Objective Pascal, Ada, and several more ar…

Rust development was already in the air a bit at the time that Go made its debut. And in a shape at the time that was arguably more Go-shaped than what it became (did not have borrow checker yet, and had a managed runtime and GC option as well I think). I personally think hubris led to Pike not working with others in the industry and Go bears the stamps of some very unfortunate idiosyncratic decisions as a result. Th…

> Rust development was already in the air a bit at the time that Go made its debut.

Go's debut was in 2009 (1.0 a few years later, but you could have used it not long after its announcement at the end of 2009). Rust's first public release was in 2012. It's very unlikely that early, pre-public release Rust could have had any significant real or hypothetical influence on Go.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#237

Post by CamperBob2 »

rezonant wrote: post #119
roarcher wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A word of unsolicited advice: HNers are a prickly lot and will downvote without explanation because you stepped on some unknowable pet peeve of theirs that probably nobody else in the world shares. This happens all the time but you likely only notice when you happen to get downvoted before any upvotes and end up at 0 or -1. If your comment is reasonable, it will usually come back up. But complaining about downvotes w…

Don't forget the post score is a balance of up votes and down votes. This mean 2 down votes and 0 up votes registers the same (-1) as 10 down votes and 8 up votes (-1). So there's no sense treating it like the community has forsaken you.

I'm pretty sure that downvotes from some users, perhaps those at a given karma threshold, count twice. I've seen quite a few posts that aren't otherwise attracting a lot of attention go straight from 1 to -1 more-or-less instantly, or from 3 back to 1.

It's also possible that they have experimented with fuzzing votes like Reddit does.

Either way, they don't seem inclined to disclose how it works behind the scenes. The Kremlinology of Hacker News is half the fun.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#238

Post by stillpointlab »

rd07 wrote: post #123
stillpointlab wrote: post #21

I literally just got Fable to write me a text editor. Well, I'll be honest, I got it to wrap the KDE KTextEditor library which is like 90% of a text editor. I had been using Kate which was what an LLM suggested was the closest to something like Sublime Text on Fedora. But even Kate, which was great, had too much going on. So I asked Fable to take the text editor part (KTextEditor) and wrap it using Rust with an LSP s…

Kate is a good editor and it needs more publicity and more extensions. But, in my experience, as far as speed goes, it is slower than Sublime Text in my machine though still tolerable.

I didn't try Sublime on the same machine so I can't compare. Kate is less polished but genuinely a good choice if someone wants FOSS.

I would have no qualms recommending either.

Re: Fine, I'll build my own text editor

#239

Post by stillpointlab »

shoobiedoo wrote: post #94
stillpointlab wrote: post #21

I literally just got Fable to write me a text editor. Well, I'll be honest, I got it to wrap the KDE KTextEditor library which is like 90% of a text editor. I had been using Kate which was what an LLM suggested was the closest to something like Sublime Text on Fedora. But even Kate, which was great, had too much going on. So I asked Fable to take the text editor part (KTextEditor) and wrap it using Rust with an LSP s…

> We live in wild times. I hope everyone is taking advantage while they can. To do what exactly? Everyone can churn out their own "kinda different but mostly the same" app thing?

To experiment. Given the availability of new tools there is opportunity to try new things.
Post reply on HN