Live data from Hacker News

Sublime Text 2 Build 2181

sublimetext.com

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Sublime Text 2 Build 2181

#112
post #41

Reading some of the comments here, it's evident that planet Emacs, where I'm from, is in a galaxy a long ways away from planet "I give a shit about the icons". Sounds like the guy behind the project is quite responsive, and doing a good job for a good price, but I'm just way too attached to having open source tools for my work.

I consider freedom a paramount attribute I expect from software I use. However, I tend to use use proprietary software if its much more convenient than free options and either 1) I can easily switch to an alternative (preferably open), 2) It is being developed in an ethical way 3) It's a game.

I consider proprietary software to be developed in an "ethical" way when an entity makes an official statement regarding the destiny of the product itself should said entity disappear, go bankrupt or, in general, discontinue development.

For example: Trolltech (then acquired by Nokia), developers of the Qt framework, double-license their product under a free copyleft license (GPL/LGPL) and a "Commercial [proprietary] Developer License". In order to protect both the community and their customers they made an agreement with the "KDE Free Qt Foundation"¹ which says: "Should Nokia discontinue the development of the Qt Free Edition under these licenses, then the Foundation has the right to release Qt under a BSD-style license or under other open source licenses. The agreement stays valid in case of a buy-out, a merger or bankruptcy."

That's why I would like to hear from Jon what his plans are in case he decides (or he is forced) to discontinue development of SublimeText for any reason.

There are egregious examples of successful editors being developed, sold and then (mostly) discontinued. Enough broken promises to warrant strong assurances from Jon.

__________

¹ http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.p...

Re: Sublime Text 2 Build 2181

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone. I've used Emacs for over a decade, but I fell in love with ST2 almost immediately. And although it may cost me some cred with diehard Emacs users: I'd much rather extend my editor with Python than elisp. Still, Emacs is my bus factor backup plan. I prefer ST2 today, but it's nice knowing there's a pretty darn excellent fallback if it disappears for some reason.

I actually use other IDE's when appropriate (Eclipse, Visual studio and XCode etc.). But it is OrgMode that makes it impossible to ditch Emacs.

Org-mode is a big stumbling block for me as well and it seems like most of its features would be possible in Sublime Text 2, but the sheer degree of integration that it's managed with Emacs' various hooks and processes might be much harder. The various org-insinuate functions, the packages to hook it into magit (or rather ST2's equivalents) & Mew, etc. are all pretty important to me. I haven't looked deeply into customizing ST2, but is it actually feasible to hook into it so deeply?

[ETA: There's a stab at an ST org-mode here that I tried previously, but really isn't very far along and development stopped almost a year ago: https://bitbucket.org/theblacklion/sublime_orgmode/ There's a fork at https://github.com/danielmagnussons/orgmode that seems to be somewhat more active.]

Re: Sublime Text 2 Build 2181

#114
post #92
post #41

Reading some of the comments here, it's evident that planet Emacs, where I'm from, is in a galaxy a long ways away from planet "I give a shit about the icons". Sounds like the guy behind the project is quite responsive, and doing a good job for a good price, but I'm just way too attached to having open source tools for my work.

Oh, it's closed source? OK, there goes all my interest. It's odd how you just expect certain kinds of software to be open source today. Edit: Since I'm getting downvoted as-is, let me flesh out this posting with some more explanation for my stance: My text editor is an application I will invest a lot of time in learning and customizing, and it's important to me that this investment will end up being worth the effort…

I can definitely relate; I was somewhat discouraged that it wasn't open source, and was somewhat resistant at first. It would have more value to me that way. I paid my $60 and I would easily pay another $60 if he'd open it up :).

So I understand that its proprietary nature is a cost and a risk, but it's important to keep that cost and risk in context.

For me, there are two mitigating factors.

(1): It's actually really, really good. It is hard to overstate this. As I am writing this I realize that I am shilling pretty hard for this product, so I should say I have no financial interest in helping the author succeed :). I am giving you this sales pitch as someone interested in the well-being of my fellow developers. If you spend your days staring and typing into a text editor, you owe it to yourself to give Sublime a serious shot. After two decades of Emacs, Vim, and Eclipse, the level of quality and polish in Sublime, even in the "beta", is almost shocking. It's not perfect, but there are aspects of it which will make you wonder why you ever put up with the obviously broken behaviors and terrible performance of (your favorite editor here). In particular, I should note that you can really get exactly the key-mappings you want on every platform, so you don't have to change your habits too significantly; it doesn't have any strange reserved keys that are hard-coded to behave differently on different platforms (I'm looking at you, Eclipse). After a few months of using Sublime, Emacs's weird, chunky, jerky scrolling, slow plugin-loading at startup, and constant pauses for GC seem like pointless self-punishment. Eclipse's patina of UI widget detritus looks distracting and confusing. And Vim's slavish adherence to the character grid and grating scriptability limitations (no way to perform timed or background tasks, random segfaults when changing buffers from certain contexts) will look dated and pathetic.

(2): Perhaps more importantly in terms of the amount of energy you might need to invest: although Sublime itself is proprietary, the API is actually reasonably narrow, and there is a ton of open-source Python that has grown up around it. So, if the Sublime Text core were to implode tomorrow, and you had a significant investment in a ton of plugins, you could bring the interesting bits over from your Sublime setup to Vim (via its Python bindings) or Emacs (via Pymacs) or Eclipse (via PyDev for Eclipse's Jython scripting bridge). Perhaps someone could even write a compatibility API that provided Sublime's Python API on those editors. In fact, I had made a conscious decision a couple of years ago to stop writing ELisp and VimScript and start doing as much of my personal editor customization in Python, and that really paid off when I moved over to Sublime; my custom habits and automation were mostly there already. Had I been going from Sublime rather than to it, wrapping the underlying API to do something sensible in Emacs or Vim would be a lot easier than trying to turn my ad-hoc eval()'d turds of elisp and vimscript into something same.

I was pretty surprised that I like Sublime so much. I am pretty finicky about my editor; I spend tons of time customizing it and adding on to it and scripting it and automating things. Since my initial burst of making Sublime behave like the parts of Emacs I care about, though, I've had to tweak it far less than any of my previous experiments, and I really got to know all the editors I've used in the past pretty deeply.

My suggestion would be to get it, use it, love it, and just send the author a friendly note saying that, as a paying customer (rather than a random Internet troll), you'd love it even more if the source were available under a friendly license.

Post reply on HN