[dmitriid]

> You've attributed the quote to the wrong person, it was not lhecker who said that.

Ah, true. I definitely misattributed this statement. For this I apologize.

> His comment argued it should all be able to handled in DirectWrite without using the alternative not that the alternative hadn't been thought of.

His statement was "it isn't worth it" and "we ready doing it via the framework we're using" to only state, a year later, [1] "We actually took the same approach Casey suggested" while insisting that "it doesn't help much".

If he'd heard about this approach before and seen it in, say, Alacritty, he has a very shitty way of showing it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31285723

[zamadatix]

I'm not sure I'm much of one for being able to untangle interpretations of chunks taken from comments spread over literal years but I think the distinction missing here is previously the WT team thought they could get away with using DirectWrite's built in approach to handle the precise issue. It was never that they didn't know there was an alternative to DirectWrite just they thought DirectWrite had a way to do it that would work just as well. They then found out this wasn't the case, completely backpedaled on which was the right architectural way to achieve the goals, and wrote this blog post about having implemented it the other way. This is what the full blogpost tries to detail the history of.

It might be a good olive branch to extend thanks to cmuratori for trying to push that it was the right architectural choice but it was never about being the source of the idea. In either case it probably is a good idea to credit the other terminals that had already proven the implementation can work prior to all of this even starting though.

[dmitriid]

I totally agree with you