1. 30
  1.  

  2. 9

    Of course Raph Levien would be the guy to design something like this…

    1. 5

      Aren’t “insanely fast” and “plugins communicating through pipes rather than scripting” contrary design goals? For a plugin that, says, reindents all the code in a buffer, I would be worried that just sending the reindented buffer content over the pipe could kill the performance benefits of a fast core engine. On the other hand, if you let people load code on the editor side, it’s easy to have this code just marshal whatever back and forth to an external process (a lot of Emacs modes do this) if that’s the best design choice.

      1. 4

        16 ms is a fairly generous time budget.

        1. 1

          It’s the time you have if you want to hit 60 frames per second. A.k.a. as fast as vsync-ly possible.

      2. 4

        How can the code “just happen to be owned by Google”?

        1. 8

          Author works at Google and is using his work computer to work on this project?

          1. 2

            He wouldn’t necessarily have to be using his work computer :(

            1. 1

              Google claims ownership of work done on personal time with personal resources?

              That’s incredibly shitty of them, if so.

              1. 10

                It’s being done on 20% time, from what I understand.

                1. 4

                  There’s a process to get the company to formally disclaim ownership of things, but then you’re pretty heavily restricted in terms of when you can work on it. If you don’t care about ownership, just getting an OSS license on something is the simpler path by a wide margin.

                  1. 1

                    If it’s useless enough then the process is easy :-)

                  2. 1

                    Shitty, perhaps, but also not uncommon.

                    1. 2

                      Not uncommon, but I normally associate the practice with companies that don’t “get” Open Source, or why devs might pursue side-projects and what their personal IP means for their careers in general.

                      I wouldn’t normally associate those attitudes with Google. And since a lot of developers refuse to sign agreements signing personal IP over to their employer, I’m surprised to hear Google requires it, given how popular they have been among developers as a “good” employer.