3 ms·
Does this really warrant a fork? Couldn't better font rendering be merged into Lite? It's an interesting and quite new text editor. Getting traction for a new e
by widdershins 5y ago
Does this really warrant a fork? Couldn't better font rendering be merged into Lite? It's an interesting and quite new text editor. Getting traction for a new editor is hard, and having multiple forks seems like it could make it even harder.
- asicsp 5y agoHere's the full reasoning mentioned in the README: >The aim of Lite XL compared to lite is to be more user friendly, improve the quality of font rendering, and reduce CPU usage.
- frankohn 5y agoAuthor of the Lite XL fork here. The reason why I started a fork of Lite is that rxi, the author of the original project, refused to merge my proposition to improve the font rendering. He didn't want to bring too much complexity to the project. In more general terms the author or Lite, rxi, values a lot simplicity in term of coding implementation even when some things are unfriendly or annoying for the user. So my decision was to fork Lite to create an alternative project that has a different compromise between simplicity and user friendliness. Now Lite XL has a small but awesome group of contributors to the project. We still value simplicity and we are trying to keep a good balance between features and complexity of the implementation but our main goal for the editor is to be friendly and useful as a general purpose coding editor. I have a very high opinion of rxi. To me the original project, Lite, is a constant source of inspiration. Even if we have made a fork of its project we highly value the principles and software practices established by rxi.