• algernon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The single best thing I like about Zed is how they unironically put up a video on their homepage where they take a perfectly fine function, and butcher it with irrelevant features using CoPilot, and in the process:

    • Make the function’s name not match what it is actually doing.
    • Hardcode three special cases for no good reason.
    • Write no tests at all.
    • Update the documentation, but make the short version of it misleading, suggesting it accepts all named colors, rather than just three. (The long description clarifies that, so it’s not completely bad.)
    • Show how engineering the prompt to do what they want takes more time than just writing the code in the first place.

    And that’s supposed to be a feature. I wonder how they’d feel if someone sent them a pull request done in a similar manner, resulting in similarly bad code.

    I think I’ll remain firmly in the “if FPS is an important metric in your editor, you’re doing something wrong” camp, and will also steer clear of anything that hypes up the plagiarism parrots as something that’d be a net win.

  • toastal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Church of Emacs vs. Cult of vi is the only true rivalry. Enlightenment will only be found taking one of these paths.

    • misty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I recently learned there are people that think emacs and vi are bloated. They like acme or sam or something. Iceberg is so deep.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        When you think of a bloated text editor, you would not expect VI to be that. If anything, it’s closer to the opposite.

        • misty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Check this out. It puts everything I thought that was, you know, more ethical to use to the harmful section and suggests some unknown and probably not very useful today stuff. Can someone explain if they have good points or not?

          • T156@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Unclear. They don’t give their reasoning beyond “complicated = bad”, and very specifically leave it up to the imagination of the reader.

            While they make some interesting points with regards to overcomplication and scope creep, there are also good reasons why we’re still not using programs like ed as text editors, such as it being arcane and unintuitive.

            vi will at least helpfully point out :exit is not an editor command. Instead, ed will not-so-helpfully point out ?.