The experience was actually quite nice for two-three people but we always had the "ok let me type now" flow. Multiple changes happening at once sounds hyper distracting.
I could also see it as a potential productivity aid. Person 1 sees Person 2 is writing something and they don't want to be seen as idle, so they start working as well. This might sound oppressive but a lot of people who struggle with ADHD/procrastination/akrasia actually receive great benefit from that structure. Similar to that startup that forces you to code while screensharing with a stranger in order to push you to work, or people who code in cafes/libraries to be more productive.
As long as it's not an organization requiring it for senior engineers, I could see promise to it as an eventual common new paradigm.
This would be good for code-walks too though. Instead of having to share your screen and hope the video comes through well. Everyone can follow along in the comfort of their own editor.
it's probably subjective, but I find these collaboration features can be overused for this kind of thing.
If someone is walking me through something, I just want to see what they see so I can focus entirely on what they're saying and no part of me is distracted by having to follow along or seeing other code.
I know typically these collab modes have an auto follow feature, but it's not as simple as just read only video being streamed to you, there's loads more ways it can go wrong and add noise / distraction that provides no benefit.
For instance, collaboration is a huge topic. You can have coding collaboration on the file, and that would be basic and appropriate, you can then replicate slack and you'll have chat rooms, which is entering creep territory, but it's natural! Then soon the chat room will need to link with issues and you can now have TODOs linked to some kanban board and we should be able to speak while we code on the same file! And this goes on and on.
It's exceedingly rare that the organization found hard courage to specifically avoid features that looks like easy pickings for the purpose of avoiding them.
But. There are now two times I see Zed going in the wrong direction. The AI integration was one. This feels like the wrong direction again.
I never really liked the AI integration. It felt off to me. I do love coding with Claude and I think I know why. It presents the "information I need to know" in a way my puny brain can handle it. Colored diffs. Summaries of what happened. It isn't perfect, but it has been incredibly productive for me. I never got that from Zed's AI integration; perhaps this has been improved, but I was up and running with Claude in a way that I never was with Zed.
This write-up sounds like "slack in my editor." If it is that, I hate it. Slack has destroyed company culture and communication. People, who are inherently lazy (I'm an old Perl programmer, so I can say that), have stopped thinking carefully and writing carefully, and in that void just throw the first thing in their head into a slack channel and think that is "collaboration" and "communication." It's toxic.
For example, this comment rubs me the wrong way: "Staff members hop in, volunteer to show off a cool feature or bug fix they worked on, and get real-time feedback from the rest of the team." I don't think our human brains work well with "real time feedback" UNLESS we have the information presented in a way that gives us massive clues on what's right and what's wrong. Reading a wall of text is not the way. A colorized git diff, or a video, or an entirely new way of presenting information might make real time feedback possible, but I am highly skeptical a text editor is the way or place to do that. And, I'm an emacs user and love text UIs, don't get me wrong.
Do I want to have "generalized one off rooms for things that don't fit anywhere?" I definitely don't want that. I want you AS THE AUTHOR to be really intentional about what's important and fit that into the proper channels. I need to know that information, but I don't want to know about, nor have the unspoken expectation that I SHOULD have known, about the other stuff. And, I want "managers" (if that still exists) to be carefully thinking about those channels and how the company is organized and push that structure down to people in the organization.
As Zed is the office, having one off rooms instead of in person coffee time feels very dangerous. That's the world a lot of people live in, but I don't like that office.
If this comment is the guiding light, then I'm worried: "We're building toward a future where collaboration is continuous conversation, not discrete commits—where every discussion, edit, and insight remains linked to the code as it evolves, accessible to both teammates and AI agents." I'm human, I have kids, I have other interests. A continuous conversation is impossible for me. I want discrete ideas, and right now, discrete commits and PRs are better, IMHO, than what I hear here. It's hard, but setting the expectation that to be successful I need to be paying attention to a river of information flowing by seems like a bad idea to me. I don't buy that Zed solves the problem of hiding the pieces of information that I don't need to see.
Oh hey! I have an idea. Why not use AI to summarize those conversations into discrete pieces! </joke>
I do love Zed. It is the best GUI editor out there. I know they will get it right. I just am skeptical about this direction and feel it misses the forest for the trees.
But, also, after reading your comments, I'm just not sure I need an "editor" anymore. I love that I can npm install claude anywhere. Zed does not exist for ARM servers yet, but I can install claude there, and it can troubleshoot my database connections, and edit code, and grep files. Those are all the things I used an editor for, because an editor has better ergonomics than using the CLI. I'm sad to say "misspelled prompts" might have better ergonomics for me.
for example it’s not out of the question that we could end up with tooling that does truly continuous testing and integration, automatically finding known-good deployments among a continuously edited multiplayer codebase
we’d have to spend a lot more energy on specifications and acceptance testing, rather than review, but I think that’s inevitable - code review can’t keep up with how fast code gets written now
You would need to either have separate versions running at the same time or never do breaking changes or devise some other approach that makes it possible.
It's not always feasible to do it this way
Here's a thread where the person replying to me makes this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45455963
Doing away with check-ins entirely is the extreme end-game of that pov. I'm in product and every day and every week yes we very much continually change the product!
But I'm growing less convinced that the natural end-state of this methodology produces obviously better results.
I run update and Collab requires you to sign in... which again, it is fine if you want it. I don't, so it can be dormant, icon is really tiny, doesn't take much space.
The feature of Zed that is most annoying yet essential is frequent updates. Pretty much daily when I switch to Zed window, I can expect update and restart, which messes up my window layout, so this is annoyance. Getting updates and knowing you guys are shipping good stuff is what is essential.
I think integrating terminal ai's is great move and useful. Sometimes I use it like that, often I use it in terminal (like the outside of the editor terminal) and switch to editor to review or update stuff. Same with git. I am old-fashioned.
If you've been a developer long enough, you might recall the teletype package for Atom—both built by Zed's founders.
Appropriately working together on a truly collaborative tool, Martin Ott, Martin Pittenauer, Dominik Wagner, and Ulrich Bauer of Technische Universitat Munchen won the Best Mac OS X Student Project for Hydra 1.0.1, a Rendezvous-based text editor that enables multiple people to contribute to a shared document. (Adam and about ten other attendees at MacHack used Hydra to take notes during this year’s Hack Contest.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubEthaEdit
https://tidbits.com/2003/06/30/apple-announces-design-awards...
As time goes on it feels like much of the low hanging fruit opportunities in software is disappearing faster and faster. I'm also a fan of Zed and everything they're doing, but it's notable that shipping next-gen editor software takes a lot more developer effort now than it did in the 2000s.
Yes I agree but so many things that might seem "done" (and in someways I think software/SaaS as an ecosystem is "done" compared to where we came from).
BUT - so many companies just bloat themselves and their products. I think the end of ZIRP is going to have an effect on that (more enshitification / rent seeking for sure) and I think there will be an opportunity to iterate and make copyware that doesn't take the higher development efforts.
We really need a winning electron alternative that is more resource friendly. That, IMO, will be a big game changer and I know there are lots of promising alternatives already.
I'd say CRDTs are also a big change. CRDTs make live collaboration much more robust for all parties involved, and they only started to reach maturity in the mid-late 2010s
While I do not work at Zed, I'm curious to hear more about this use case for my own company needs.
Is it just my vision, or are websites getting super low contrast these days, esp the text-heavy ones?
Could be your monitor as well.
The multi-user editing is kind of cool... there's an ANSI art tool (PabloDraw) that you can run a host session so multiple artists can create text art, and I thought back when I first saw it, that it might be cool to be able for multiple editors to work on a project. I've used some of the collab stuff with VS Code, but haven't done enough to even begin to compare.
Not to mention that in a lot of workplaces, self-hosting or otherwise layers of bureaucracy stand in the way.
- On my Tablet, which is too slow for Jetbrains IDEs to run smoothly
- On certain projects I have which choke Jetbrains IDEs. (Due to macro use maybe?)
I'm also trying their GPUI library, but am in the early stages, so can't really comment on how it compares to EGUI.
I'll always remain someone plugged into vim because I need it sometimes when shelled over a terminal. Editing files over SSH can work with editor support, but is often less reliable or fast than jumping through whatever hoops I need to to get an SSH connection once and then doing everything from there.
Sadly my workflow of using `!` to get back to my terminal and things like `!make` or `!cargo build` is fucked in neovim. So I do a lot of ctrl-z and the a lot of killing stopped processes I forgot I suspended. I've complained about this in various threads and chats, but the developers aren't interested in letting us use the old vim `!` which is super lame.
It's true, most of them are bad. Galaxy Book5 Pro or Microsoft Surface are OK.
bguthrie•1h ago