What's the point of this comment? Zed didn't exist in 1998, so I think it's forgivable that Zed didn't support remote editing in 1998.
It's pretty funny you'd comment this at the same time there's a thread on the front page with people complaining about emacs bugs/performance issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41954030
Is that really the best we can do? Should we have frozen tech in 1998 with our 28.8kbps modems and stopped trying to improve anything ever again? Why did you switch to this emacs fad when you could have stuck with ed(1)?
I think it's great that people are advancing the state of the art. Good for Zed.
> Should we have frozen tech in 1998 with our 28.8kbps modems
We had Ethernet and high-speed networks in 1998. The rest of the world has just caught up, that’s all.
> Why did you switch to this emacs fad when you could have stuck with ed(1)?
Emacs is an improvement over and above vi & ed. No other current editor is an improvement over and above Emacs. The only improvement Emacs is lacking is Common Lisp extensibility.
> I think it's great that people are advancing the state of the art.
But they’re not — they’re reimplementing the decades-old art. Why waste time using worse technologies to extend worse editors when one can invest one’s time using better technology to extend a better editor?
It's pretty funny you'd comment this at the same time there's a thread on the front page with people complaining about emacs bugs/performance issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41954030
Is that really the best we can do? Should we have frozen tech in 1998 with our 28.8kbps modems and stopped trying to improve anything ever again? Why did you switch to this emacs fad when you could have stuck with ed(1)?
I think it's great that people are advancing the state of the art. Good for Zed.