I've seen a million and one text editors, and almost all of them offer the feature of being "fast <rocket emoji>" or "gpu driven" or "cleanly implemented" (now "AI integrated"; LOL). Never features that users actually care about. Perhaps this is just my ego taking, but I think I would struggle to develop such an app. What is the point in programming if you aren't presenting the user with anything new? I suppose the collaborative features in this are almost novel, but they seem misguided. It relies on other people using the same text editor as you, which is going to be quite difficult to organise.

How about a text editor which represents code as a syntax tree that is formatted as you type? Or one that has support for embedding multi-media content within source files? Or one with advanced program rewriting capabilities (in-lining functions, replacing struct members into getter methods, etc)? These things would all change the a user's experience much more than replacing the CPU rendering with GPU rendering. A text editor is the window through which we interact with code. It is an immensely rich domain for experimentation, yet the best most come up with is "what if there was a 10ms smaller latency on keyboard input?"

I think the issue here is one of perspective. As programmers, we see the code. We tend to put more focus on the features that took us the longest to implement. But often, these are not visible or relevant to the user. We like to show off the 80% of the effort that gets 20% of the outcome rather than the 20% that yields 80%. I think there's also a measurability bias at play. It's easy to make the case that a faster thing is better than a slower thing, but harder to make the case for an interesting feature. One is measurable but the other is not.