Why do I get a warning when trying to run this on Windows 11?
Zed 1.0
251–260 of 727 posts
Re: Zed 1.0
#252I want to use Zed but last time I tried it was spawning node processes, i guess for lsp. (I develop in Go)
Re: Zed 1.0
#253Why do I get a warning when trying to run this on Windows 11?
windows makes it really hard to distribute applications now.
everything gets a warning until the app has some minimum count of installs
Re: Zed 1.0
#254Congrats! My daily driver is Zed developing on SSH remote servers on exe.dev. It's crazy to think of all the dev tools I've churned through over the last 18 months but these two feel sticky. Zed has everything I need in a unified pane. File editor, terminal, agents, SSH remotes. And it's fast and intuitive exe.dev is the first "dev container" I've ever *loved*. The remote sandbox means `dangerously-skip-permissions`…
"online live reloading apps" => trying to get my head around this workflow. so the disk is shared across these? so do you still have the problem of say running a "main" version of an app, and it's weird experimental version of that same app? because they still have to live in different folders/worktrees? that's where I get stuck a little trying to enable things like this for others. right now, I've got people a system we can spin up N "vms". but it's not persistent storage if the vm goes away. it's whatever version exists in their GitHub branch. hopefully if they hack the vm app they commit and push back to the repo.
Re: Zed 1.0
#255[flagged]
They have a single switch that will remove all AI features from the interface. Why do you need more than that? This is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don't understand it — if you can get all of those features completely out of sight, deactivated, with no trace of them left except that one switch, why is that not enough? Is it as though any kind of AI integration like contaminates the purity of the code or something?
Re: Zed 1.0
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Zed, but I hear you. It's a very fast and capable editor with lots of IDE features, but it's lacking comfortable ways of tuning it for specific projects. (This is a problem with every general purpose, everything-to-everyone kind of IDE versus stack "native" IDEs that are geared toward the one true way of developing for particular target.) The configuration file structure is arcane, and it certainly not clear w…
The standard approach these days is to have all of those declared in a config file somewhere in your project. That way, other contributors (and the CI) can lint/format consistently. Even if it's for solo projects, it's nice that you don't have to update them in lockstep. As in, you revisit an older repo, you don't get bombarded with squiggly lines from your latest user profile, instead you can upgrade it at your leis…
True, and not disputing that. Two points:
1. I want to be able to readily duplicate that configuration for another similar project.
2. It's not always appropriate to co-locate those specific files within the project source itself, especially within a source repository. Notable cases are if we're working on different platforms with different binary paths, or if we're not standardized on a particular editor. I should be able to configure my editor without polluting the common source.
Re: Zed 1.0
#257[flagged]
They have a single switch that will remove all AI features from the interface. Why do you need more than that? This is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don't understand it — if you can get all of those features completely out of sight, deactivated, with no trace of them left except that one switch, why is that not enough? Is it as though any kind of AI integration like contaminates the purity of the code or som…
I need more than that because I have no guarantee that its true. I need the source. Or I at least need them to provide a build that they promise doesn't have that stuff in it at all, so that if any analysis was done on a decompilation, there would be some level of certainty that they were telling the truth. Anything that leaves any of it in complicates that effort and makes the certainty that less certain.
RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): It's not paranoia; I'm not concerned if they "take" my content. I write open source, CC0 licensed software. I couldn't give a fuck about anyone doing literally anything they want to do with the code I write. Literally take it and call it your own, for all I care. If I can return the interrogation, why are you so concerned with ownership? Why was that the first place your mind jumped to? Paraphrasing: where is the need for this insane level of "if you've got nothing to hide..." submission?
Like I said: it's about trust. They want me to trust them. You, for some inexplicable reason, seem really upset that I won't trust them. Neither of the parties have given me any reason to trust them. Just insistence that I should, if I want to use their product. And while I entirely agree with that rationale, I don't understand why I get clapbacks for stating that I intend to adhere to that agreement entirely! Won't use the product because they won't give me what I need to trust them. That should be making everyone happy, right? I know I'm happy with the arrangement, at least.
Aside from all that, and far more relevant to my actual comments: another user pointed out the repository where they DO offer the transparency that I'm asking for. So your entire hissy fit is moot when you could have just pointed out that I was wrong in my understanding of what they offered. I mean, that would have gotten in the way of your sycophantic leap to the defense of the company I was so hellaciously attacking, so I understand why a good capitalist bootlicker might not think of that first, but at least now we both know!
Re: Zed 1.0
#258I've tried switching from JetBrains IDEs just a few days ago. The speed and memory footprint are very impressive. I ended up badly missing refactorings and some other features and configuring a debugging session looked like something that needs more time than I had on my hands. So went back for now. I hope they add more IDE features eventually. There's not much a pure text editor can offer over Emacs after all.
But this announcement sounds like they are prioritizing agents integration - the same thing that seemingly made JetBrains drop the ball on their core advantages.
Re: Zed 1.0
#259[flagged]
That's silly. Turn it off if you don't want to use it, but don't expect anyone to build a special fork for you.
I don't. I'm asking them to let me make my own fork, like I can do with VSCode.
RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): hey thanks! that changes things quite a bit! Now I'm curious how well Claude could vibe-code the AI out of that project. Mostly just for the irony of it, but I can't deny that it would probably be faster than doing it myself - at least to start.
anyway, I appreciate the simple and straightforward solution without getting side-tracked by how my ignorance and misunderstandings made you feel.
Re: Zed 1.0
#260I've been using the editor since the early days and have always been a fan of its visual look and feel, so I was pretty happy to see its UI library open sourced. I wish GPUI could become the go-to Rust UI library and not just an editor backend. For that, a couple of changes would be highly desirable: being able to switch the GPU backend from Metal to wgpu (so it could be mixed with vello, for instance), and the abili…
> I wish GPUI could become the go-to Rust UI library and not just an editor backend.
In case you find it useful, I recently stumbled upon this project:
https://github.com/longbridge/gpui-component
"UI components for building fantastic desktop applications using GPUI."