> Perhaps, if you like the thing so much, you could explain why
I am an avid Atom user who acknowledges how slow the thing can be. None of the slowness on my end approaches any of the horror stores in these threads, but for me, opening the program from a cold boot takes long enough for the wait to irritate me, the first time I save any file after opening the program takes a second or two, and opening a new window takes a second or two.
However, I stick with Atom for a few reasons.
First, Atom is like Sublime Text, but nicer. It has real settings pages! It has a built-in package manager! And although you might consider the fact that it's written in what is essentially a web browser to be a downside, there is a huge upside in that packages can create interfaces with that flexibility that Sublime Text simply can't match - compare something like this https://atom.io/packages/php-debug with Sublime Text's best-effort https://github.com/martomo/SublimeTextXdebug . Not only is trying to assemble an interface out of text buffers not as flexible as a webpage, they also tend to be brittle and break in odd ways if you do any window manipulation on your own - this is actually a complaint I have about Emacs and Vim as well. Also, it just feels like Atom's plugin API is more complete in general - I remember there being a Sublime Text package that required making a copy of your theme so it could add its own styles, and I haven't seen anything similarly hacky in Atom yet.
Second, Atom is open source. I had bought both Textmate and Sublime Text and both of those editors had updates slow to an absolute crawl to the point where it felt like the developer had abandoned them. I feel like Atom being open source makes it less likely to be abandoned completely, especially considering how vibrant the community that has sprung up around the editor.