> Rich is a Python library for rich text and beautiful formatting in the terminal.
> The Rich API makes it easy to add color and style to terminal output. Rich can also render pretty tables, progress bars, markdown, syntax highlighted source code, tracebacks, and more — out of the box.
Seems Rich is not just displaying pretty text, it seems to almost be a full blown UI library that can render components and more.
Since the API surface is that big, it's possible for bugs to slip through, and those have to be fixed by someone.
Then once companies and other people start depending on this library, they start being dependent on fixes to also be made to it as new platforms appear, new terminals get written and so on.
Either the companies/people can start contributing their fixes directly upstream, or the can fund one person who can do it for them, and for other users of the library.
Although most of us know what happens in situations like this: no one except the original author actually fixes stuff, until the author looses interests and moves on.
One of the most baffling things about HN is how commenters routinely and wildly underestimate the amount of resources it takes to build high quality software
> In particular Rich and Textual, but also pyfilesystem and lomond
> In addition to working on Rich and Textual, [...] contribute to open source in other ways. [...] code reviews to open source projects
His focus seems to be mostly on Textual, which looks pretty neat.
Why does a library for displaying pretty text on the terminal need a full time maintainer?