
Xi-Editor – Modern editor with Rust back end - rammy1234
https://github.com/google/xi-editor
======
pvg
megapreviouslies:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=xi%20editor&sort=byDate&prefix...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=xi%20editor&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

------
raphlinus
I didn't post this, but am happy to answer questions. It's not quite yet at
the point where you want to use it as your daily editor, but we are slowly and
steadily getting there.

~~~
Numberwang
Windows?

~~~
raphlinus
I've actually some nontrivial progress on xi-win in the past month or two. I
still consider it experimental, but it offers basic editing functionality now.
It's written basically directly on top of winapi, no toolkits or frameworks,
which I'm doing partly because I enjoy tinkering, and partly because I expect
to be able to achieve significantly better performance than would otherwise be
possible.

Syntax highlighting is not working, largely because I can't figure out how to
compile onig. But we'll figure that out one way or another (if it's too hard,
we'll switch to fancy-regex, which is pure Rust).

------
bvinc
I'm the maker of gxi, a gtk frontend for xi written in rust. I wouldn't
recommend trying it yet, it's still in heavy development, but I've been making
some good strides lately. I've had good experiences so far with the xi
backend.

------
jdc0589
Some of the Xi guys have some really good talks (or maybe just 1, I dunno) on
YouTube. I really enjoyed them.

------
Nomentatus
Damn. Just when I was interested - a GPL patent-grab license. (Google "implied
patent grant") Billions have already been spent redoing GPL software under BSD
and MIT licenses that aren't patent-phobic. Do we really have to do this
again?

~~~
pedrocr
The implied patent grant is also present in BSD and MIT. At least that was the
consensus in the Facebook licensing issue:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515)

The reason I've always seen about companies not liking the GPL is that they
want to be able to make closed source versions of software. If there was some
risk that once you submit code to a GPL project you've donated all your
patents to the world it would be a risk with BSD and MIT licensing as well.

~~~
Nomentatus
That thread is hardly a consensus, and those putting this view forward seem to
badly confuse copyright grants with patent right grants.

The 2-clause BSD grants only copyrights in clause one, and disclaims any other
grant or warranty in the second clause.

I can't imagine how to get from that clause 2 explicit disclaimer of other
rights to an implied claim of other rights.

~~~
pedrocr
The consensus isn't the thread. The consensus is apparently among those that
work on these issues professionally. Here's a better subthread that explains
it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505)

~~~
Nomentatus
I see good evidence for my view, contradiction for yours here. And certainly
not consensus. Starting with: "For example, it's considered unclear enough
that the ClearBSD license was explicitly created to clarify that it doesn't
offer patent grants - jttp://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ClearBSD"

What I find there pro your side is actuallly just the pure confusion of
copyright grant with patents. Nobody denied that copyright licenses were being
granted.

~~~
pedrocr
I don't understand what you're saying. Surely the fact that a new license was
needed to make sure an implied patent grant exists means that the normal BSD
license includes a patent grant. That much is stated in the link I shared:

"The BSD license normally includes an implied patent license."

It couldn't be clearer. You can disagree with him but that's what's being said
and is apparently a consensus among open source lawyers.

~~~
Nomentatus
"consensus among open source lawyers." One person claimed that, but provided
no source - when answering a contrary opinion with a source.

~~~
pedrocr
The source is himself supposedly as one of those in that select group. Other
people in the thread consider him an authority as well. He states that that
contrary opinion is niche and has been at least partially refuted by new
events. From my point of view it's a much better source than yours or mine
reading of licenses.

------
mabbo
As an end user, I don't care what language a program is written in. I care
about features, usability, accessibility and many other things- but not how
you did it.

Maybe you've got something awesome here, but you had only a few seconds to
catch my interest with your subtitle, and you instead used it to tell me what
part of it _you_ love rather than what part of it _I_ will love. Don't do
that.

~~~
pedrocr
That's entitled and in my view just plain wrong. I want people to tell me why
they think something is technically cool on hacker news. Even if what's cool
is how it's built and doesn't matter to the user at all. And when I personally
don't care for it I just move on.

~~~
webkike
Exactly! I'm never going to give up Emacs, but I'm sure as shit interested in
the technical aspects of text editors.

