Why are modern text editors so slow? Here's an editor that I use from 1996 opening up a 1GB file of randomly generated bytes (dd if=/dev/urandom of=random_bytes.txt bs=64M count=16): http://i.imgur.com/BVln6Y2.gif -- it opens instantly and I can scrub to any point in the file with no delay. I've yet to find a modern editor that beats my 1996 one.
Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
81–90 of 135 posts
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#82Maybe I'm biased but it seems like Sublime lost its huge margin in the "editor race". Occasionally I try to use Sublime, but the plugins are always lacking. For my needs, VSCode is already better with better plugins (C, Go, Python), and I'm more productive with it although it lacks some features in the editor itself. And it doesn't feel slower even though it's written in JS. Plus it's open source. I hope the Sublime…
> For my needs, VSCode is already better with better plugins
I bet the Sublime spell-check plugin doesn't send your entire file to a third-party server over plain http.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#83I think ST3 really missed the boat. I used to love using Sublime Text 2 (occasionally I still do because it is fast), but I moved on when development stagnated and Jon seemingly disappeared off of the face of the planet, stopped responding to support requests and the like. There is no disputing ST is a great editor, but it has fallen behind in the face of Atom, Webstorm and Visual Studio Code (two of which are free).
> ... but I moved on when development stagnated... ST3 dev releases[1]: 2016: 14 versions 2015: 25 versions 2014: 4 versions 2013: 40 versions While pace really slowed down in 2014, there was at least occasional updates every few months fixing major issues. I know people love to complain about ST's " slow development ", but really don't understand where the perception comes from. For me the experience has been the op…
I think the perception comes from people who aren't on the Dev release channel. When I saw you list 14 releases in 2016 alone (!?), I wondered where on earth you made up that number... until I realized that's the Dev channel. On the Stable channel, the releases have been:
2016: 2 versions
2015: 2 versions (one just a patch for the other)
2014: 1 version
2013: 12 versions
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#84Maybe I'm biased but it seems like Sublime lost its huge margin in the "editor race". Occasionally I try to use Sublime, but the plugins are always lacking. For my needs, VSCode is already better with better plugins (C, Go, Python), and I'm more productive with it although it lacks some features in the editor itself. And it doesn't feel slower even though it's written in JS. Plus it's open source. I hope the Sublime…
> For my needs, VSCode is already better with better plugins I bet the Sublime spell-check plugin doesn't send your entire file to a third-party server over plain http.
Probably not, but it's also pretty hard to know what Sublime does, given its closed-source nature.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#85Please correct title. The file linked to on the webpage is a 2 weeks old beta.
Sublime Text 3 has NOT been released.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atom? Maybe. Emacs? Nope.
Well, in Atom you can replace any of the javascript Atom comes with with your own customizations, same in Emacs with elisp, where does the difference lie? (I'm a emacs/evil user).
Emacs is written almost exclusively in elisp, and every elisp function can be changed at any time. Much of Emacs' core lies wide open in the global namespace, and is thus easy to change from any level.
As far as I understand, Atom has quite a bit of code that is not openly accessible, be it because it is part of a Node.js, transpiled from something else, buried in closures, or simply too deep in the hierarchy to be easily reachable from the plugin level. Sure, you could change it if you set your mind to it and maybe patched a few files here and there, but it's certainly not as easy as in Emacs.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#87I think the title of this should be updated, as it is not correct. The sublime text homepage has been displaying builds for sublime text 3 since mid February[0] Sublime Text 3 is still in beta. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160211015747/http://www.sublim...
Wow, great pickup. I've been using my SublimeText install from 2015 and receiving RC updates; last time I installed it I had to go to the beta page to do so, etc.
When I hit the ST front page today (after having reset my Windows 10 install due to issues going from RC1 to RC2 of dotNetCore) and saw the direct download link to ST3 I got the impression that it must just have been released - I got rather excited, not having seen any posts on HN to the effect (I searched).
Unable to edit the post now; I feel incredibly silly, and sorry to have created false expectations by posting the submission using that title. My apologies to Jon Skinner; I love his work.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#88I'm not sure what all the missed-the-race type comments are all about – what does this even mean?
ST3 is a solid editor with what I consider a very healthy plugin eco system. I don't think there's a single feature I've missed that so many seem to think are crucial to any reasonable development (web or otherwise) and its speed and accuracy is what keeps me as a customer. (Multi-file search and replace is a breeze, even in huge files.)
Worth every penny.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. They have been selling Sublime Text 3 licenses for a while. "A license is valid for Sublime Text 3, and includes all point updates, as well as access to prior versions (e.g., Sublime Text 2). Future major versions, such as Sublime Text 4, will be a paid upgrade."
That's interesting, when did it change? There's no upgrade pricing available (yet?) and my ST2 licence still works.
If you bought ST2 license before the release of ST3 beta, I think you might need to pay for an upgrade once the final version 3 is released.
At some point during the beta release, they started selling ST3 license instead of ST2 licenses.
Re: Sublime Text 3 marked as recommended build
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atom? Maybe. Emacs? Nope.
Well, in Atom you can replace any of the javascript Atom comes with with your own customizations, same in Emacs with elisp, where does the difference lie? (I'm a emacs/evil user).
1. Think about something; you can do that in emacs.
2. Think about something; you can maybe do that in Sublime.
I'm not even talking about running a shell on your emacs but just about text-editing.