71–80 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that. I guess it's always possible to return to Vim if Neovim starts showing signs of being steered by its sponsors.
At this rate you're going to be cooking over a campfire and living in a cave in a few years.
I was interested in Zed, but lost all interest when they started integrating "AI". I'm tired of "AI" everywhere. I'll just stick with Neovim until something better comes around. Which probably won't happen until after the "AI" bubble bursts.
Zed was the first editor that tempted me into using AI features. It felt solid in general and AI feels mostly like autocomplete in other editors (in terms of how much it's in your face). There's definitely a place for AI models and agents in code editors, and Zed makes me feel like it's not built around them, which is great! Zed feel like "Come to us, we are making a good fast editor that also has AI." while competit…
It's surprisingly slow. Switching files in the tab list has a noticeable delay. Typing is higher latency than both Emacs (lsp-mode activated) and my web browser. Also uses approximately 60MiB more than my Emacs. It starts fast though! I wouldn't complain about this stuff if it wasn't for their tagline being 'it's fast' and they're losing to Emacs Lisp (not a language amenable to being very fast) with a highly optimiz…
https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/dape.html
The way it's designed (incl. having no dependencies) suggests that they will be angling for it to be included with stock Emacs at some point.
I'm very happy to see work on the debugger. This is the main feature preventing me from switching full time to zed. Unfortunately, "here" is not accurate. Not having a watch window, a stack trace view, and no mention of data breakpoints in the announcement still keeps the "beta" tag. I know those features will arrive eventually, but what is described is definitely not sufficient for 97% of my debugging sessions. I wo…
I was interested in Zed, but lost all interest when they started integrating "AI". I'm tired of "AI" everywhere. I'll just stick with Neovim until something better comes around. Which probably won't happen until after the "AI" bubble bursts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they are not intrusive but their entire focus changed on that instead of other features. Entire Git view feels abandoned in half done state yet they spent entire month working on AI chats, AI agents, their own AI edit (that's priced 20 per month yet they boast how light and performant it is -- why isn't it free local model then and why its priced worse than copilot?) They're moving from "making awesome code editor" i…
Wouldn’t the addition of the debugger disprove this slant? Huge feature that has nothing to do with AI.
I'm very happy to see work on the debugger. This is the main feature preventing me from switching full time to zed. Unfortunately, "here" is not accurate. Not having a watch window, a stack trace view, and no mention of data breakpoints in the announcement still keeps the "beta" tag. I know those features will arrive eventually, but what is described is definitely not sufficient for 97% of my debugging sessions. I wo…
I have to try out the debugger yet. However I share your sentiment but for the Git feature. The basics are there but it is just not complete yet to fully replace my current git workflow. Hope they keep focus on that as well.
With that said, Zed has effectively replaced all of Emacs for me, besides Magit. Additionally, typing in other editors feels noticeably higher latency than Zed :)
I've been daily driving Zed for almost a year now -- works best on TypeScript, Rust, and Go projects, in my opinion.
There's just so much functionality Zed has to build out to compete with modern editors (agentic coding, collaboration, debugging, edit prediction, task runners, version control). With that said, for pair-programming sessions with friends, Zed has been perfect since Linux gained screenshare support. However, there's a noticeable "pause in development" for collaboration in order to implement major features like Agentic Coding, and smaller-but-essential features like direnv integration, IME support (typing Japanese in the terminal used to be a clunky, error-prone task), dealing with the endless permutations of Python tooling so that Python files aren't a sea of red lines, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this rate you're going to be cooking over a campfire and living in a cave in a few years.
Nah, the AI bubble will have popped in a few years and projects will stop sprouting AI features left and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Zed with auto-completing Rust code? I love how fast Windsurf and Cursor are with the "tab-tab-tab" code auto-completion, where nearly everything suggested is spot-on and the suggestions keep on rolling, almost automating the entire task of refactoring for you. This form of autocomplete works really well with TypeScript and other scripting languages. IntelliJ / RustRover never got anywhere close to that level o…
> How is Zed with auto-completing Rust code? I think they all use LSP, so whether you use neovim or Zed there shouldn't be a difference? (not 100% sure, but that's my basic understanding of LSP).
RustRover has the best AST suggestions and refactoring support out there. It works in gigantic workspaces, across build scripts, proc macros, and dynamic dispatch.
The problem with RustRover has been the lackluster AI support. I've been finding AI autocomplete generally much more useful than AST understanding, though having both would be killer.
I'm very happy to see work on the debugger. This is the main feature preventing me from switching full time to zed. Unfortunately, "here" is not accurate. Not having a watch window, a stack trace view, and no mention of data breakpoints in the announcement still keeps the "beta" tag. I know those features will arrive eventually, but what is described is definitely not sufficient for 97% of my debugging sessions. I wo…