@bugaevc@mastodon.technology this seems overcomplicated, I'd much rather have something like Acme or Plan 9's rio shells and build these things on top of that
@grainloom @bugaevc And, going back even further, Symbolics Genera and other Lisp Machine implementations.
@vertigo @bugaevc@mastodon.technology yup, hence my question about Emacs in another reply
@ckeen @bugaevc@mastodon.technology I mean, it looks cool but uuugh, I hope it doesn't end up as its own OS and will integrate with the rest of the system
otherwise this just looks like ZSH with some GTK/Qt added
TBH all these fancy shell prompts and such are getting pretty ridiculous. If you are using a graphical UI it should take advantage of that. So far all we have are some weird terminal emulators with a baud rate setting.
That has to change
I think you are undervaluing the efficiency of text.
Compare the logographic below to its (possible) translation:
"If a man utters this spell while pure, it assures going forth by day after his death" (see https://www.quora.com/How-does-Egyptian-hieroglyphics-translation-work for further info and translations).
We have a spacial problem (pixel to meaning ratio), a problem of composability and a problem of interpretation.
IMHO, text centric UI (like #Plan9's one) are simply too ahead of times.
@ckeen @bugaevc@mastodon.technology idk, I like a lot of the ideas in theory but if it's not as portable and modular as what we currently have, I don't see myself using it anytime soon
i'm not against making UIs better but I'm not sure how I feel about these ideas
how does it compare to what came before? how does it compare to Emacs?
None of this is portable in any way. That's why we are still stuck with what we have. Every wanted to know how the graphical shells change their title? There are some escape sequences for that. Icky stuff...
@bugaevc@mastodon.technology it has a coolness factor to it but I would sleep better if I knew that whoever implemented this took a look at acme and rio first