Zed: High-performance AI Code Editor

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

AI capabilities and agent panel

  • Many see the new agent panel as a big improvement: better context gathering, clear diffs, faster than earlier Zed AI and often more reliable than Cursor/Windsurf for non‑trivial edits.
  • Others feel it’s still behind Cursor’s “Apply” model and edit predictions, or find it slower and more fragile (e.g., whole‑file rewrites, 400‑errors with some providers).
  • There’s a split in UX preference: some loved the old fully editable chat buffer (edit/delete model output, trim context), others prefer the new more structured panel. Zed still exposes “text threads” to preserve the old workflow.
  • Several users highlight Zed’s context management—chat + inline edits sharing context—as a standout design, similar in spirit to tools like Claude Code or Cline.
  • Some dislike “agentic” behavior and want simple back‑and‑forth chat without file writes; Zed supports this via “Minimal/Ask” modes and text threads.

Performance, rendering, and platform issues

  • On macOS with Retina/high‑DPI, Zed is widely praised as extremely fast and low‑latency, often the first GUI editor that feels as responsive as terminal editors.
  • On Linux, experiences diverge: some report it as “lightning fast”; others hit unusable slowness or “unsupported GPU” due to Vulkan/driver issues, sometimes falling back to CPU rendering (llvmpipe). Workarounds involve GPU selection env vars or wrappers.
  • A major recurring complaint is blurry/uncrisp text on 1080p/1440p “regular DPI” monitors, across macOS and Linux. Screenshots comparing Zed vs VS Code show visibly softer text for some users; others see no problem and attribute it to font weight, themes, or lack of subpixel rendering. The root cause is debated and unresolved in the thread.

Workflow, features, and comparisons

  • Many traditional Vim/Neovim/Helix users report Zed as the first GUI editor they could plausibly switch to, citing speed, clean UI, and solid LSP integration.
  • Others stick with JetBrains IDEs for superior refactoring, debugging, and language‑specific intelligence (especially Python, Java, PHP). Zed’s lack of mature debugger (in beta), weaker Python experience, and limited C++/CMake integration are common blockers.
  • Some feel Zed’s AI‑first direction neglects basics: Git UX, debugger, Python tooling, Markdown performance, accessibility, and stability on certain setups.
  • Collaboration features were initially a key draw but are reported as buggy and seemingly deprioritized since the AI pivot.

Privacy, accounts, and AI opt‑out

  • Telemetry being opt‑in is appreciated, but the persistent “Sign In” button and GitHub‑based login (which can conflict with Copilot accounts) annoy some users.
  • Several want a completely AI‑free mode: most AI can be disabled in settings, but the prominence of AI and account hooks still puts some off.
  • There’s interest in local models (Ollama, OpenRouter, MCP servers); basic chat supports this today, but auto‑completion/edit‑prediction still lacks a first‑class local option, though it’s said to be on the roadmap.