I really like all the blog posts and videos the Zed team has put out, thank you if you’re reading this!

Unrelated to this specific post I’m such a fan of Zed. It’s the first feature complete text editor in recent memory that I’ve truly enjoyed using (i.e. it stays out of the way, is really fast, feels well engineered). I’m coming to Zed after years of Emacs which I still have love for but no longer feels like a competitive piece of software (it does not take full advantage of how good computers are today, e.g. gpu rendering or multicore). I really hope Zed stays a fast and lightweight text editor instead of becoming some bloated growth-at-all-cost VC ware (not that they’ve exhibited any signs of that happening). I’d also happily pay for Zed without a subscription based thing for access to LLM features (which I do not use).

  >  // Parallel bit count intermediates
  >  let a = v - ((v >> 1) & (u64::MAX / 3));
  >  let b = (a & (u64::MAX / 5)) + ((a >> 2) & (u64::MAX / 5));
  >  let c = (b + (b >> 4)) & (u64::MAX / 0x11);
  >  let d = (c + (c >> 8)) & (u64::MAX / 0x101);

That "parallel bit count" is almost certainly slower than using two POPCNT instructions on a modern cpu. Should just call __builtin_popcount() and let the compiler do it the most optimal way. Luckily, people do this sort of thing so often that many modern compilers will try (and often succeed) to detect you trying this insanity and convert it to a POPCOUNT (or a pair of POPCOUNTs as the case may be here)

nth_set_bit_u64: wouldn't that be __builtin_ctzll(_pdep_u64(1<<n, v)) with BMI2?

Isnt the tab example wrong? Id assume it to be

aa -> -> bb -> -> bb

It only takes up two spaces, after all

Is there a way to adjust text contrast in light mode in Zed yet? The editor is unfortunately unusable for me, because of how washed out the colors are.

> opacity: 0;

> filter: blur(1px);

Wonderful styling!

SIMD can work quite well here too - with 128-bit SIMD (available on both baseline x86-64 and aarch64) this can be just ≤8 loop iterations checking for the newline character (each iteration counting the number of newline characters encountered, and a lzcnt on the last iteration), and similar for characters (assuming valid UTF-8, it's a single comparison to test if a byte starts a new char).

Why not store just a small u8 count of newlines in a chunk instead of their u128 positions and then only loop through the last chunk for precision?

You don't need information about the position of newlines in all the chunks located before the one your offset lands on

I really want to admire the Zed folks even though they are a new faction in the editor wars where I’m an emacs guy: they take mostly all the things I care about seriously.

The are serious about local vs. remote vs. shared. They are serious about hardware acceleration because they care about users who type fast and edit big files. They care about real computer science on how to push the current hardware to serve the user, rather than treating the hardware as a crutch to give the user a slightly worse experience at a fraction of the development cost. They care about code highlighting the snippets on their blog like very similar to the default Zed theme.

These are cool, serious people. If they give me emacs key bindings with full paredit-everywhere, I might switch my daily driver.

And this is about using modern SIMD-style stuff, branch less stuff, Lemire stuff in a modern and relevant context. Other commenters have pointed out that you can do the mask or popcount better with intrinsically, and yeah, but they probably know that, and B. They got the massive win, the remaining factor of K on the pop count is coming.

Long Zed.