Hacker News Reader

Comment by wiseowise | Hacker News Reader

> while JetBrains products are full-blown IDEs, with abilities Zed will never offer.

None of those matter if they just close the IDE before it indexes.

> When all of these tiny issues come together, it makes me NOT want to program. I don’t want to sit around and wait for startup times to get my ideas onto the screen. I don’t want to worry that my CPU or RAM is going to be exhausted and I am going to have to restart my machine. I want to open my editor and immediately enter a flow state. I want the tooling to assist me when useful, and stay out of my way when not.

View on HN

Yes I have read that, and whatever, some people rather walk straight away, because waiting for the car to warm up takes a few minutes.

I have IDE tooling experience since Borland products for MS-DOS, and plenty of programming editors as well, between PC, Amiga, Mac and UNIX clones.

> because waiting for the car to warm up takes a few minutes.

If only it was this. Usually the car transmission breaks, there are random engine shutdowns, and after restart the car just doesn't function anymore. And when it actually does start, it moves so slow and consumes so much fuel that I can't justify using it. That's my experience with JetBrains IDEs.

Idk what car you have but mine can drive right away, just like Zed.

Side note: to a rounding error, all modern cars can be safely driven right away. Wait a few seconds for the sound of the engine to change, indicating that oil is now happily pumping through all the grindy bits, and then you're ready to go. I'm not saying you want to drag race your neighbor 10 seconds after starting the engine for the first time that day, but once you don't hear the tappets being tappety, it's OK to pull out of your driveway and start moving at a sane pace.

> indicating that oil is now happily pumping through all the grindy bits

That's not a modern car. Modern cars do not pump oil through all the grindy bits. Modern cars need to wait for the BMC to stabilize its power.

Not who you are replying to, but the new Lexus RX350h takes and absurdly long time to be ready to drive away, if you want to use the rear camera to help back out of the parking lot.

Wait, don't you reverse into a parking space and drive straight out?

Slow car computers aside, it doesn't really make a difference in the scheme of things. Spend the time backing up now or later. Also, maybe you need to use your trunk and you'd rather have it opening into free space instead of another vehicle or a wall.

I contend it does. People tend to take way more time backing into a space than pulling into it, and hardly more time backing out of a space than pulling forward out of it.

I'm certain this isn't how they think of it, but when I see someone blocking traffic while they painfully back into a spot, I imagine them imagining themselves having to fly out of there without a moment to spare, like they plan on having a drastic emergency before they leave. And if that person isn't driving a police or fire department car or the like, I roll my eyes at the delusion of grandeur.

Surely a big part of the reason is steering leverage relative to the kerb.

You are able to one-shot reverse parallel park into a much narrower gap without hitting the bumpers of the cars around you or getting onto the pavement.

In my cars, generally, yes. The Lexus in question is my MIL's car, and she prefers it parked at home nose-in. We were also running some errands that required access to the rear (groceries, returning a printer/fax machine).

I always wonder why people do this. What’s the reasoning?

I asked a former truck driver once and his answer was that it's easier to see what's in front of you than behind you. I wondered why people in our neighborhood backed into their driveways at first, then I realized this was indeed true. If I turn into the street and back into my driveway, somebody probably hasn't jumped behind my car. If I get in my car and back out of my driveway, somebody walking/biking along may not notice my car backing out of the driveway, and my old potato backup camera isn't always the best at illuminating people behind my car at night in bad weather.

When you have a tight spot, getting into it in reverse is the only way to do it safely — your front wheels can turn but your rear wheels can’t.

However I always park with the front to the exit, since I might find myself in a situation where I have to drive away very quickly.

It might be anything from a dumpster truck about to block the street to some kind of family emergency.

I have the 20 seconds now but I can't be sure I will have them in the morning.

I wonder this too. It’s much harder to back into a cramped parking space than backing out into an open space. So they do it very slowly. Watching people do this is frustrating.

They would rather back into a parking spot surrounded by stationary obstacles than back into a parking lot or road which may contain pedestrians or other drivers.

I'm not saying _I_ back into spaces. I generally drive into spots and reverse out of them. However, I admit that what I do is a tradeoff where I take on risk in order to have a mechanically easier time entering and exiting the space.

This makes no sense. In either case the car traverses the same space once forwards and once backwards.

That's true, but what GP is saying is that when you're pulling out, you are traversing the part of the space overwhelmingly more likely to contain passing pedestrians and vehicles with full visibility.

And then some parking spots require parallel parking which is best done via backing up anyway.

I don't think you understood what my comment says. The whole point is that it covers your "but".

> It’s much harder to back into a cramped parking space than backing out into an open space.

With cramped parking spaces, your real options are (a) backing into it or (b) driving forward into it. When you need to have a 90 degree turn, option (a) gives you more control over the eventual position of your car, and is frequently the only option.

Can you elaborate more on why it takes a long time to be ready to drive away in reverse? How long are you talking?

I didn't time it but I'd put it at 30 seconds. It sits there for a while with the infotainment screen black, then it does this animated splash screen, then it loads the infotainment/cameras.

Depending on the planet region, and season, you might actually have to wait before driving.

Frozen Winters, heavy snow, diesel pumps,....

If a text editor is a car, an IDE is an airplane. You can get to more places with it, but you need a lot of space and time to even start moving and then it consumes a ridiculous amount of fuel.

Horrible analogy. You can't "get to more places" with an airplane. An airplane can only go to very limited number of locations compared to a car.

That actually makes it a great analogy. An IDE allows you to make common edits like renaming a variable, just as an airplane gets you to any big city. But when you need to make an uncommon edit, it’s better to reach for Vim – just like you need a car to get to some random place in the middle of woods.

This comment is so absurd I'm struggling to reply.

A car takes you to an "uncommon place in the woods?"

Taking a plane is a "common edit?"

For the majority of people a car would be the "common" usage and a plane would be the "uncommon" usage. Unless you're a billionaire taking your private jet between runways to then hop on a helicopter for the rest of your trip.

It's a terrible analogy.

Exhausting the CPU and memory? I'm genuinely curious how he gets such a different experience to me.

Startup is definitely slower than vim though, but it's something that happens only once for me, then it stays open all day (unlike vim which I close and open repeatedly)

One can always use multiple editors for what they do besg.

Zed, helix, nvim for small files in gui or terminal.

A solid Slow start IDE for solid extended time work

Reply on news.ycombinator.com