Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

sublimetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 241 posts

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#171

Post by orf »

iffycan wrote: post #165
xienze wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing VS Code. Now you may not think it's lightweight, but for anyone not toiling away on a turn of the century machine it's plenty fast and has great debugging facilities.

You got me excited, but VS Code is missing the one feature that prevents us from using it (or Atom, or Brackets): the ability to open, display and edit a file with null bytes in it. Sublime does this wonderfully. VS Code refuses to open the file. Atom pretends the bytes aren't there.

Add a ticket to the github repo? It only takes a second. You could alsp fix it yourself and make a mr if you're able, it's just JavaScript.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#172

Post by bpicolo »

pikzen wrote: post #169
bpicolo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually looked into it a bit more. This may have been the fault of the default "workbench.editor.enablePreviewFromQuickOpen": true, as quick open is literally the only file opening mechanism I use (I assume, if that's cmd+p). Weird default. I turned it to false, maybe that will fix the closing-files issue. Now if only I can get it to stop automatically closing quotes during comments and ruining my english contract…

"editor.autoClosingBrackets": false Unfortunately, that also turns off all bracket matching.

Yeah, I saw that, that's no good. I like it 98% of the time :)

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#173

Post by bpicolo »

iffycan wrote: post #165
xienze wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing VS Code. Now you may not think it's lightweight, but for anyone not toiling away on a turn of the century machine it's plenty fast and has great debugging facilities.

You got me excited, but VS Code is missing the one feature that prevents us from using it (or Atom, or Brackets): the ability to open, display and edit a file with null bytes in it. Sublime does this wonderfully. VS Code refuses to open the file. Atom pretends the bytes aren't there.

Huh, interesting. VS Code does have an "editor. renderControlCharacters" option.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#174

Post by lloeki »

educar wrote: post #170
mos_basik wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...as a sublime user, I go back to vim when I have to open really large files. I've never used vscode, but this makes me wonder how small a file has to be for vscode to manipulate it quickly.

I have had better luck with sublime when opening very very long lines (think 56k chars). This comes from a sqldump. Even vim was not up to the task.

vim might very well be if it turns out you had syntax on. I've yet to have vim fail on me as long as I skip the pretty colours for big files. Then again I've had very long lines indeed but can't tell if they were that long.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#175

Post by jrochkind1 »

coldtea wrote: post #14
wbond wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been very active on the forum, Discord, IRC and the Packages repo on GitHub. I don't think the stereotype of Sublime HQ being radio silent holds true any longer. We don't, however, make blog posts or tweets saying "we're still working on the next build." However, whenever anyone asks on the forum (twitter, etc) I'll be happy to tell you we are still working on the next build! :-)

> I've been very active on the forum, Discord, IRC and the Packages repo on GitHub. I don't think the stereotype of Sublime HQ being radio silent holds true any longer. Yeah, it's the blog posts/tweets stuff that might be needed. Because most devs don't bother checking the forums (much less irc). In fact, and this is 100% true, I just spoke to a guy in the next office asked him enthusiastically "did you get the new S…

The ST page _still_ says "Sublime Text 3 is currently in beta. ". This leads the cautious and uninitiated user to install ST2 instead.

I used ST2 for years after everyone else was using ST3, before I realized that ST3 was basically what everyone else is using -- which I mostly only realized as more and more packages were available only for ST3 and not ST2.

I have no idea why the author still calls ST3 beta, but I am curious.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#176

Post by hikarudo »

greenhatman wrote: post #88
captainmuon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Release or not release is just a name. You shouldn't let that be a factor. In my experience it is absolutely stable and as bug free as software can be. However, I'm not sure how well maintained it is. I fear all the time that the author, jps, has quit, but then every few months he has a development sprint and releases a new version. I'd rather have it permanently called "beta" but a minor update every month, than one…

That's true. I've been using Sublime for years and I've never had a bug or a crash. It pretty much perfect. And it's blazing fast. I actually even use its fuzzy search to search my harddrive sometimes. Because I haven't found an easy app for Linux that works like Search Everything on Windows.

I use Synapse on Linux, it does the job. No fuzzy matching, though.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#177

Post by joshuata »

mataug wrote: post #131

Sublime is my favorite editor for LaTeX. I've tried every other editor on the market, TexMaker, TexStudio, OverLeaf, ShareLaTeX. All LaTeX editors pale in comparison to Sublime + LatexTools Plugin + git. Each tool in this stack is designed to do one thing and they do it perfectly.

Absolutely! I've tried so many other tools, but LaTexTools + Skim is so simple. It makes writing LaTex almost comfortable.

(I love LaTex, but it is still one of the most frustrating pieces of software ever conceived.)

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#178

Post by onetom »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #130
agounaris wrote: post #64

Why people cry about sublime not having a "release" yet. I have faced 0 bugs, seriously 0 and I'm using it for more than 3 years. Its way more performant than the rest "cool" editors and honestly...it just works! Maybe you need a little bit more configuration to make it perfect for you but thats just it.

On Mac, one bug that bites me about once per week is the editor becomes unresponsive. Not the whole application, I can still focus on windows, use the menus, and scroll the text, but the text editor just goes vegetable. The caret disappears, and I am unable to select text, type, paste, etc. Occasionally it returns after 20-30 seconds, but usually I have to restart Sublime. It's still a great application in spite of t…

Last time I had similar issues was about 5 years ago with ST2. Are you talking about ST3?

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#179

Post by DamnInteresting »

gaastonsr wrote: post #135
DamnInteresting wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Mac, one bug that bites me about once per week is the editor becomes unresponsive. Not the whole application, I can still focus on windows, use the menus, and scroll the text, but the text editor just goes vegetable. The caret disappears, and I am unable to select text, type, paste, etc. Occasionally it returns after 20-30 seconds, but usually I have to restart Sublime. It's still a great application in spite of t…

It has never happened to me. By the way something great about sublime text is that I can quit and open ST again in ~2 seconds max. It's that fast.

Restarting is indeed quick, but sadly sublime text windows don't re-open on the same desktop they were on when I quit. They all pop up on whatever desktop is up when I re-launch, and I have to arrange 4-5 windows again. It's not a huge deal, but it is an inconvenience.

It's a testament to the quality of the app that the gripes are so minor.

Re: Sublime Text 3 dev build 3128 released

#180

Post by enraged_camel »

coldtea wrote: post #116
enraged_camel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this day and age, I think 4 months is pretty long, yeah. But that's just my personal opinion. I think Chrome and Firefox has the right idea, with updates every 6 weeks.

> In this day and age, I think 4 months is pretty long, yeah. Most commercial desktop software, and even web services like Gmail, go on for years on end without an update. Browsers are always adding crap (like Firefox's nth cosmetic update), they should be stabler too. Once every 6 months or so at worst.

>>Most commercial desktop software, and even web services like Gmail, go on for years on end without an update.

Yes, and I'm saying that's too long. I don't like waiting months or years for fixes or new features.

I also stated that this is my personal opinion. Not sure why people are downvoting.

Post reply on HN