51–60 of 186 posts
Am I the only one sick of projects declaring, "written in rust", "primarily developed in go", etc? Why do your users care about your implementation language? Do you have any features worth mentioning? If your main selling point is that you used the shiny new language, I'm already doubting the usefulness of the endeavor. Just the straw that finally broke the camel's back . . .
Am I the only one sick of projects declaring, "written in rust", "primarily developed in go", etc? Why do your users care about your implementation language? Do you have any features worth mentioning? If your main selling point is that you used the shiny new language, I'm already doubting the usefulness of the endeavor. Just the straw that finally broke the camel's back . . .
Some things I found:
1. You have a much better chance of getting upvotes if you appeal to a popular technology. Had I not mentioned Meteor I suspect I would never have made it to the front page.
2. In my case, most of the initial interest came from those more interested in the underlying technology than the application.
3. I found it very difficult to market the project as an issue tracker as it was already established as a meteor project.
As an emacs addict/user, what I really want is a credible alternative to that cockroach of editors. Price of admission: run in a terminal, run graphically, run on every possible system, be open source, be ridiculously, easily extensible. What a successor might add: Not be riddled with bugs. Not be ridiculously, terribly bad at actually displaying text (quickly, smoothly, large amounts). Not be extended in a language…
As an emacs addict/user, what I really want is a credible alternative to that cockroach of editors. Price of admission: run in a terminal, run graphically, run on every possible system, be open source, be ridiculously, easily extensible. What a successor might add: Not be riddled with bugs. Not be ridiculously, terribly bad at actually displaying text (quickly, smoothly, large amounts). Not be extended in a language…
Atom (hear me out): + runs graphically + runs linux, macos, windows (nothing else?) + open source + ridiculously, easily extensible + not riddled with bugs (slowness is not a bug) + for small files, comparably quick to Sublime on my machine + major dev community; already much better than 6 months ago - slow in some instances, esp. large files - doesn't run in terminal - doesn't run in less-popular OSes +/- moderate R…
-runs on linux and mac with problems, barely usable on windows
-keyboard mapping issues on various non-US keyboards
-ridiculously unextensible - coffeescript? really?
-most of the bug reports I've done in my life is for atom and atom-related extensions - they're the most buggy softwares I've ever used. Btw non of the issues got a fix...
-can't handle large files and slower than sublime/vim/emacs etc.
-weak dev community
-terrible ram/vcard usage, unusable in a virtualbox
+some themes looks nice on it
As an emacs addict/user, what I really want is a credible alternative to that cockroach of editors. Price of admission: run in a terminal, run graphically, run on every possible system, be open source, be ridiculously, easily extensible. What a successor might add: Not be riddled with bugs. Not be ridiculously, terribly bad at actually displaying text (quickly, smoothly, large amounts). Not be extended in a language…
Which of those does vim not hit?
As an emacs addict/user, what I really want is a credible alternative to that cockroach of editors. Price of admission: run in a terminal, run graphically, run on every possible system, be open source, be ridiculously, easily extensible. What a successor might add: Not be riddled with bugs. Not be ridiculously, terribly bad at actually displaying text (quickly, smoothly, large amounts). Not be extended in a language…
As a Vim addict/user. All I really want is a bit more modernization. I mean single threaded text editor in 2016.. NeoVim is supposed to be the savior.. But I don't feel like it gets a lot of support...
Am I the only one sick of projects declaring, "written in rust", "primarily developed in go", etc? Why do your users care about your implementation language? Do you have any features worth mentioning? If your main selling point is that you used the shiny new language, I'm already doubting the usefulness of the endeavor. Just the straw that finally broke the camel's back . . .
Something about the phrase "Successor to Sublime" rubs me the wrong way. It's condescending and misleading. I initially thought, did the author of Sublime open source his work like the author of Textmate? But no, it looks like this looks like an independent project, and since Sublime is still updated, can there be a successor yet?
It's what the French call a "dick move".
As an emacs addict/user, what I really want is a credible alternative to that cockroach of editors. Price of admission: run in a terminal, run graphically, run on every possible system, be open source, be ridiculously, easily extensible. What a successor might add: Not be riddled with bugs. Not be ridiculously, terribly bad at actually displaying text (quickly, smoothly, large amounts). Not be extended in a language…
Atom (hear me out): + runs graphically + runs linux, macos, windows (nothing else?) + open source + ridiculously, easily extensible + not riddled with bugs (slowness is not a bug) + for small files, comparably quick to Sublime on my machine + major dev community; already much better than 6 months ago - slow in some instances, esp. large files - doesn't run in terminal - doesn't run in less-popular OSes +/- moderate R…
I came to Atom from Sublime because the plugin ecosystem was growing much faster and the community felt more active. I haven't looked back since.
And no, Atom not designed to open 30Mb files. Complaining about this is akin to stomping on a land mine and complaining that your Timberland boots didn't save your foot. Just use Atom for its intended purpose: editing source files written by reasonably reasonable people.