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

Sublime Text 2.0 Released

sublimetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 358 posts

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#271

Post by skeletonjelly »

tikhonj wrote: post #266
brittohalloran wrote: post #39

Can I just say I love the pricing model. It's paid software, with an unenforced 'trial period'. Relying on coders who use a text editor all day and appreciate good software and want to compensate someone for their good software. +1 humans.

That's interesting. Back when I was using Windows, I had some tools (like WinRAR, I think) with that sort of license. I hated it. One of the things I really loved when switching to Linux is that I didn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense for an archiving tool, or for any other tool I needed but didn't use often.

Would Flatr be appropriate here?

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#272

Post by nkohari »

tikhonj wrote: post #266
brittohalloran wrote: post #39

Can I just say I love the pricing model. It's paid software, with an unenforced 'trial period'. Relying on coders who use a text editor all day and appreciate good software and want to compensate someone for their good software. +1 humans.

That's interesting. Back when I was using Windows, I had some tools (like WinRAR, I think) with that sort of license. I hated it. One of the things I really loved when switching to Linux is that I didn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense for an archiving tool, or for any other tool I needed but didn't use often.

How often do you use a text editor?

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#274

Post by bergie »

guns wrote: post #155
lordlarm wrote: post #124

Hm, Am I the only one who spends hours in vim each day with ~15 lines in my .vimrc and almost zero plugins? At some point I think I realized that no matter how feature-rich my editor was, the main thing stopping me from writing good and fast code was _thinking_, not configuring my text editor.

I continue to be haunted by something a good artist friend used to say: "Don't obsess over your tools. They are not the goal". This would ring in the back of my head as I spent many hours configuring my editor / shell / terminal setup. It felt like a guilty pleasure. It dawned on me however, that what had drawn me to programming in the first place was a sublime text editor (TextMate), and that my business is in fact…

I've once watched a group of sculptors argue about the merits of various drills for a whole evening. So yes, artists also obsess over their tools just like we do over ours.

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#275

Post by eli »

xiaomai wrote: post #202
phn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that. Developers tend to be more sensible about paying for software. Regular people will just download it without reading the "yada yada" stuff about paying. Case in point: WinRAR, anyone? EDIT: Just to clarify, I like the pricing model too. I just don't think it works for software in general.

An article on the demise of winamp suggested that the winamp people were receiving over $100,000 a month in checks sent by mail. I would suppose if you had an easier way to pay then checks by mail, even more "regular" people would be willing to pay. I point out winamp because it is similar in that no new features are unlocked after paying.

Fair enough, though few of us will ever write software as popular as WinAMP once was.

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#276

Post by TimJRobinson »

jng wrote: post #162
brittohalloran wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, I think this model works best for 'software for developers'. Developers naturally empathize with the author of their software much more so than a 'typical user' would.

Developers are typically very bad software customers. As much as they could empathize, more often than not, they think they could do it themselves in a couple of weekends.

I have wasted so many months of my life in this trap, spending a few days coding an app myself rather than paying usually less than $100 for it (usually because I want some small feature it doesn't have) . I dont think its ever been worth it in the long run.

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#278

Post by josephcooney »

kprobst wrote: post #264
jules wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when browsing code it's faster to click on a method name than to navigate to it with the keyboard.

Even in Visual Studio that's not true, at least not for me. Just move the cursor to the symbol in question, hit the menu key and select the 'Go to definition' or whatever menu item. Or better yet, map it to something like Ctrl+] which I usually do.

I thought F12 was mapped to 'go to definition' by default? in any case, not hard to set up something like you suggest.

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#279

Post by jamesaguilar »

bronson wrote: post #270
jamesaguilar wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's saying it's easy, but enough IDEs have done it that some of us have come to expect it.

Only for old and static languages.

Actually, Eclipse's Python support is decent. You can infer a lot about what a type is by what methods and properties are accessed. It's not perfect, but it can do a decent job of it in a lot of cases.

Re: Sublime Text 2.0 Released

#280

Post by rapind »

jules wrote: post #247
rapind wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me what you're describing are imagined problems. They aren't real problems for someone who eschews autocompletion tools. No offence intended. I would argue that the autocompletion training wheels for learning a new API are really only useful if you're rarely going to use that API again. If you're going to be using it a lot, there's actual value in spending the extra effort to learn it's functions. It'll stick more…

> I would argue that the autocompletion training wheels for learning a new API are really only useful if you're rarely going to use that API again. If you're going to be using it a lot, there's actual value in spending the extra effort to learn it's functions. Couldn't agree more with the second sentence: I actually print out a listing of common APIs and take the time to memorize them. But you just described 90% of t…

I wasn't using the term "training wheels" in any sort of derogatory way. You described autocomplete as a learning tool to get you up and running fast with a new API. Training wheels seemed like a good analogy. Nothing macho about it.

I don't think autocompleting a call 30 times is nearly as valuable as looking it up for me at least, because since I'm already invested I'll take the time to learn about it. If all I did was tab complete something and it seemed to work I'd be far too lazy to dig any deeper. I don't see why I'd spend any more time on it during consecutive autocompletes either.

Also, when I use a new library chances are very high that I'll be using it over and over and over again. It's more like 10% of APIs that I'll never use again (but still may learn something). I'm speaking purely from experience, and it baffles me that others stated finding so little library re-use. That sounds incredibly frustrating.

It's been my experience having used autocomplete tools in the past (4-5 years ago would be the last time) I don't miss them at all. I don't think they provide me with any real benefits. This is completely thought through and rational IMO. However I will grant you that it's potentially subjective and not everyone would see the same benefits.

Post reply on HN