4 ms·

Am I the only one on HN which thought this was a bad idea all around from the beginning? I remember that people were very enthusiastic back then because of the

by blub 6y ago

Am I the only one on HN which thought this was a bad idea all around from the beginning? I remember that people were very enthusiastic back then because of the Rust hype and the author's pedigree, so critics were quickly silenced. For me, picking Rust and the JSON-based IPC were huge red flags and this post-mortem confirms that. But what I find odd is that many are still not willing to accept the conclusion that using Rust for a UI-intensive app is a bad idea. And using multiple languages in a project and splitting in back-end vs. front-end or lib + UI is also quite popular around here, unjustifiably in my opinion when one considers the extra complexity involved.

GolDDranks 6y ago
I was quite enthusiastic about it, and don't see even now why using Rust for a UI-intensive app would be a bad idea in general. If doing an app with a "monolithic" design, the lack of good frameworks is a problem, but that's improving, so it wouldn't be a good idea if you want to see results right now, but I'm pretty comfident that's gonna change. However, I fail to see how the choice of Rust is relevant in this particular project, as the UI part was meant to be programmed in any language, making Rust an irrelevant part of the equation. On another note, I'm baffled why you are downvoted. I find your comment negative, but not unreasonable.
okatsu 6y ago
I don't have any opinion on Rust but reading about microservices, JSON and IPC in the context of a high-performance editor did make me raise an eyebrow.
bhl 6y ago
I wasn't there when xi-editor started, but writing a text editor in Rust and splitting the backend from the front-end still seems like a good idea. Why? You could compile Rust to Web-assembly -- getting a more performant text editor than if it was written in Javascript -- and then develop your browser or native frontend in HTML/CSS/JS.
kllrnohj 6y ago
> For me, picking Rust and the JSON-based IPC were huge red flags and this post-mortem confirms that. But what I find odd is that many are still not willing to accept the conclusion that using Rust for a UI-intensive app is a bad idea. This postmortem says Rust was, and still is, a great fit for the problem domain for which it was used. Where do you reach the conclusion that Rust is bad for UI-intensive apps? That claim appears to have no relation to the post-mortem as Xi didn't use Rust for the UI in the first place? Things might have been better if Rust was used for the UI if anything, as attempting to be native instead was one of the problem areas.
- blub 6y ago
  How does the claim that it's a great fit reconcile with the fact that the project which was supposed to prove the said great fit was shut down? In the end real world is the only yardstick by which projects can be reasonably measured. However if we want to remain positive, we could say like Edison that this project did not fail and is merely attempt 1 of 10000 at learning how not to build UI apps with Rust. :) > Where do you reach the conclusion that Rust is bad for UI-intensive apps? I've reached that conclusion by applying logic and looking at the state of Rust and its capabilities as a language and the scarcity of UI apps built in Rust.
ARussell 6y ago
No, you're not. But I'd not say something beforehand, because there's nothing wrong with such a project succeeding if that's what ended up happening. Being able to say "I told you so" isn't worth it. Although I personally think Rust is fine. It's just that I thought the frontend and backend split is too complex. I am looking for something simpler than neovim, personally, and xi didn't tick that box for me.
- blub 6y ago
  Right, I didn't want to be a killjoy other, but the goal of postmortems is honestly appraising what happened. Not mentioning Rust as a cause for failure at all is mildly disappointing but at the same time mostly expected given the lack of self-reflection in the community. I would have also liked to see some thoughts on how this debacle could have been avoided. What were the mental processes that made the author(s) ignore some pretty serious alarm signs about the design? How can these be better controlled?

by blub 6y ago

GolDDranks 6y ago

I was quite enthusiastic about it, and don't see even now why using Rust for a UI-intensive app would be a bad idea in general. If doing an app with a "monolithic" design, the lack of good frameworks is a problem, but that's improving, so it wouldn't be a good idea if you want to see results right now, but I'm pretty comfident that's gonna change. However, I fail to see how the choice of Rust is relevant in this particular project, as the UI part was meant to be programmed in any language, making Rust an irrelevant part of the equation. On another note, I'm baffled why you are downvoted. I find your comment negative, but not unreasonable.

okatsu 6y ago

I don't have any opinion on Rust but reading about microservices, JSON and IPC in the context of a high-performance editor did make me raise an eyebrow.

bhl 6y ago

I wasn't there when xi-editor started, but writing a text editor in Rust and splitting the backend from the front-end still seems like a good idea. Why? You could compile Rust to Web-assembly -- getting a more performant text editor than if it was written in Javascript -- and then develop your browser or native frontend in HTML/CSS/JS.

kllrnohj 6y ago

> For me, picking Rust and the JSON-based IPC were huge red flags and this post-mortem confirms that. But what I find odd is that many are still not willing to accept the conclusion that using Rust for a UI-intensive app is a bad idea. This postmortem says Rust was, and still is, a great fit for the problem domain for which it was used. Where do you reach the conclusion that Rust is bad for UI-intensive apps? That claim appears to have no relation to the post-mortem as Xi didn't use Rust for the UI in the first place? Things might have been better if Rust was used for the UI if anything, as attempting to be native instead was one of the problem areas.

blub 6y ago
How does the claim that it's a great fit reconcile with the fact that the project which was supposed to prove the said great fit was shut down? In the end real world is the only yardstick by which projects can be reasonably measured. However if we want to remain positive, we could say like Edison that this project did not fail and is merely attempt 1 of 10000 at learning how not to build UI apps with Rust. :) > Where do you reach the conclusion that Rust is bad for UI-intensive apps? I've reached that conclusion by applying logic and looking at the state of Rust and its capabilities as a language and the scarcity of UI apps built in Rust.

ARussell 6y ago

No, you're not. But I'd not say something beforehand, because there's nothing wrong with such a project succeeding if that's what ended up happening. Being able to say "I told you so" isn't worth it. Although I personally think Rust is fine. It's just that I thought the frontend and backend split is too complex. I am looking for something simpler than neovim, personally, and xi didn't tick that box for me.

blub 6y ago
Right, I didn't want to be a killjoy other, but the goal of postmortems is honestly appraising what happened. Not mentioning Rust as a cause for failure at all is mildly disappointing but at the same time mostly expected given the lack of self-reflection in the community. I would have also liked to see some thoughts on how this debacle could have been avoided. What were the mental processes that made the author(s) ignore some pretty serious alarm signs about the design? How can these be better controlled?