3 ms·
This actually looks pretty cool, but I can't help myself from some quick responses to their first bullets: > Developers work in teams, but terminals don’t supp
by greggyb 5y ago
This actually looks pretty cool, but I can't help myself from some quick responses to their first bullets:
> Developers work in teams, but terminals don’t support collaboration
With SSH, tmux supports full terminal session sharing.
> Developers rely on sharing knowledge, but all my terminal work disappears every time I close a session
All shells I know of have configurable history settings. rlwrap will give you the ability to have history (and nice input) for anything shell-ish or interpeter-ish in the terminal.
> Developers work across machines, but my terminal environment is tethered to my computer
All configuration I care about within a terminal can move from machine to machine with typically a single rc file. Often, I don't even need to do this, thanks to remote file editing and being able to send commands via SSH without an interactive session.
> Developers are becoming accustomed to nice interfaces, but the terminal inflicts pain and makes me feel like an idiot when I try to do moderately complicated things
This one is purely subjective and I simply disagree. It's difficult to engage.
A day with your shell's manual and you should be good. Any other applications will have learning curves, and I don't find CLI to be significantly better or worse than a GUI for discoverability.
- methyl 5y agoThese all feels to me like famous Dropbox comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Of course you can do some of the stuff Warp does, but you need to have an extensive knowledge. Making them more accessible is always a win.
- greggyb 5y agoI think the cool parts of Warp are outside of those bullets. I wouldn't suggest that the responses to the bullets are a replacement to what the product is doing. I just don't think those bullets make a strong argument on their own. It was a quippy response to a weak intro and not a critique of the product.