I'm so glad it's not just me. M1 MacBook Pro, here, and I quickly gave up on Zed because it felt so laggy to me. Thought it was something wrong with my MacBook (or maybe me).
Was already astounded that after decades of universally agreeing that number of lines of code is a terrible metric for software engineering productivity, devs are now using it as the proof that agentic software development is the future. Can't wrap my head around how lighting money on fire is now apparently something to maximize [0].
Not the person you are replying to, but I had the same thought come to mind. Every library and app seems to have its own way of disabling telemetry. In order for a unified way to actually result in unification, everyone has to sign onto it. Otherwise you now have DO_NOT_TRACK=1 for everyone who respects it in addition to all of the existing ways for everyone who does not respect it.
I have to imagine the takeaway from comments in this thread would be a big old "it depends." Which is the best almost certainly depends on what you are looking to optimize for and which trade-offs you are willing to accept. Is a long-time iOS user who has been casually eyeing other options, I'm curious what other folks will have to say.
I have personally found that I cannot context switch between thinking deeply about two separate problems and workstreams without a significant cognitive context-switching cost. If it's context-switching between things that don't require super-deep thought, it's definitely doable, but I'm still way more mentally burnt-out after an hour or two of essentially speed-running review of small PRs from a bunch of different sources.
Curious to know more about your work:
Are your agents working on tangential problems? If so, how do you ensure you're still thinking at a sufficient level of depth and capacity about each problem each agent is working on?
Or are they working on different threads of the same problem? If so, how do you keep them from stepping on each other's toes? People mention git worktrees, but that doesn't solve the conflict problem for multiple agents touching the same areas of functionality (i.e. you just move the conflict problem to the PR merge stage)
At least in e.g. Emacs and sublime text, you can mark all occurrences throughout the entire file. Assuming the matches are similar enough that the same motions apply even if you can't see the cursor, you can perform those operations.
Otherwise, as a sibling comment said, incremental search/replace is your friend.
dot repeat is the wrong comparison. A closer one would be macros, but even then a good multiple cursors implementation is often faster, more intuitive, and requires less cognitive overhead. One of the better examples of the usefulness of multiple cursors is from Emacs Rocks (link goes to 0:23):
This assumes that the way things are now is the way things always will be.
Right now AI is in its mainframe era (thin clients connecting to expensive compute somewhere else that you don't control), but I firmly believe that the AI version of the personal computing revolution is on the horizon. Democratized computing probably seemed pretty out of reach when all we had were mainframes, but in retrospect the progression from mainframe to personal computer to supercomputer in your pocket seems ordinary and almost expected.
I have no doubt that the technology needed to democratized personal AI will also advance in similar ways, and we will have no shortage of next generation's "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Technology advances quickly, but the apocalypse narrative is still bullshit. The reality is much closer to what it has always been: technological advances are a way to enhance what humans can do, not replace them. Being adaptable and adopting a spirit of learning and growth is (as it always has been) a key factor in a successful career trajectory.
Through a sufficiently narrow lens, any technological advancement can be perceived as a threat. If your job was to perform calculations for your company using a microscope and calculator (computer, the job title) then the invention of the computer (the machine) was absolutely a threat to your job security. That's not to say that there aren't challenges to adapting or considerations for how to do it well, but it has always been the case that the old way is a casualty of the new way.
I am neither anti-AI nor an AI evangelist but I think a more productive viewpoint is to think about how these advancements could open the door to new opportunity. For example, democratization of learning. It has never been easier for anyone in the world with an Internet connection and a computing device to have access to a personal math tutor or nutrition coach.
Not sure why you are being downvoted, as this is a very valid conclusion for you to arrive at, individually.
To those downvoting, please note that this person did not say that nobody should switch, only that the information provided was a clear indication that it is not the right fit for them.
I, for one, greatly appreciated the detailed pro/con list in the post, as many of these would be genuine annoyances to me, and would have probably taken several months to encounter all of them.