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

Sublime Text 3 Beta

sublimetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 374 posts

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#161

Post by AngryParsley »

I see ST3 bundles its own version of Python 3.3 on all platforms. ST2 did this on Linux and Windows, and it was quite annoying. In ST2, the ssl module is broken on Linux and the select module is completely missing on Windows. (See http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/50801-bundle-python-ss... and http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/149231-include-pythons...)

I started to port one of my plugins to Sublime Text 3 beta, but basic things are broken. Importing urllib.request raises an exception on OS X:

    >>> import urllib.request
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "", line 1, in 
      File "X/urllib/request.py", line 2456, in 
    ImportError: No module named '_scproxy'
Except for a few well-documented edge cases, a properly-built Python behaves the same on OS X, Linux, and Windows. I really hope Jon Skinner gets better at building Python. Dealing with these random platform-specific issues is very frustrating.

That said, I am a fan of Sublime Text. (Otherwise what am I wasting my time writing plugins for?) It's like TextMate, but cross-platform and not abandonware. :)

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#162

Post by adlpz »

idoco wrote: post #154

JetBrains should buy them and integrate all these wonderful features into Intellij. That might be the most powerful IDE ever made!

God no, please. The attractive of Sublime is that it's not an IDE, but a very fast and powerful text editor with some IDE-like niceties.

If JetBrains bought it and integrated it in IntelliJ that would end killing the original project and I'd be forced to go berserk on Prague, big time.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#163

Post by awjr »

oomkiller wrote: post #127
jvm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial version of ML was terrible on my 2008 MBP but they made performance enhancements and now 10.8.2 works fine. Spending $50 for gb/RAM didn't hurt of course (best investment of my life btw).

You must not have an SSD yet. I highly recommend them.

I'll second that. I put an SSD into a 'poor performing' laptop as a stop gap before buying a new laptop. I still haven't bought that new laptop 2 years later.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#164

Post by eyko »

pretoriusB wrote: post #90
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #52

Are these changes really worth the "3.0" tag? Goto to symbol is great, but all other bullet points taste like what I expected 2 to have once it left beta (basically, speed and not letting plugins crash my session). Isn't this a clever way to make users buy into a paid upgrade for a stable version of an editor they already bought?

> Are these changes really worth the "3.0" tag? Absolutely. > Goto to symbol is great, but all other bullet points taste like what I expected 2 to have once it left beta (basically, speed and not letting plugins crash my session). I bought ST2 without expecting all these features. Taking the effort to add out-of-process plugins? That's more that the TextMate guy has done in all 6 years of dabbling with 2. On top of t…

^ this reply can be summarized as "turning on the fan to spread shit on everyone else".

This is a discussion about sublime, not other editors. And if other editors have shortcomings, it's not an excuse.

I also think that after paying for software the least you can expect is relatively bug-free code or quick updates to fix them, and a reduced number of crashes. That is, for software that has left beta to be labelled stable.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#165

Post by thoughtcriminal »

Version 3 is probably where I get off the ST upgrade train and just settle for version 2/3 beta.

I like ST, and it serves my needs well enough, but I already paid $59 for this software and that's enough for a text editor.

Paying yet another $30 isn't worth it for me, especially when I didn't ask for these upgrades.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#166

Post by veidr »

SCdF wrote: post #149

I'm not near a computer at the moment, can any body tell me how the performance is with very large files (>20mb) compared to the previous releases? If there was one thing that disappointed me about ST2 it was that it wasn't very competent with massive log files and the like. ATM I use an ide for Java, ST2 for nearly everything else (other languages, random text) and less / vi / others for logs and other massive files…

I just opened a 49.8MB log file and the ST3 beta took 6 seconds to open it. The app can open/edit other files while this initial loading happens.

For fun I tried some other editors (this is on OS X):

BBEdit 10.5: instant

vim 7.3: instant

TextEdit 1.8: instant

Textmate 2.0.0a9351: hung the entire app for 15 seconds

ST2: 9 seconds

So yeah, ST3 still seems to fare pretty poorly in this regard.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#167

Post by bxbb »

pretoriusB wrote: post #90
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #52

Are these changes really worth the "3.0" tag? Goto to symbol is great, but all other bullet points taste like what I expected 2 to have once it left beta (basically, speed and not letting plugins crash my session). Isn't this a clever way to make users buy into a paid upgrade for a stable version of an editor they already bought?

> Are these changes really worth the "3.0" tag? Absolutely. > Goto to symbol is great, but all other bullet points taste like what I expected 2 to have once it left beta (basically, speed and not letting plugins crash my session). I bought ST2 without expecting all these features. Taking the effort to add out-of-process plugins? That's more that the TextMate guy has done in all 6 years of dabbling with 2. On top of t…

"API: Projects are exposed to the API"

this, and the rest of API-specific features will add 0.5 to make it completely "worth" the 3.0 tag.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#168

Post by FooBarWidget »

ok_craig wrote: post #141
toast76 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's $30. What sort of development are you doing that isn't worth $30 for the single tool that allows you to do it? I can't imagine carpenters are incensed when Ryobi brings out a new $300 drill. You either buy the new drill, or you keep the old one. Nobody expects new hardware for free, why software?

If you have an old drill and buy a new one, you own an old drill and a new drill. If you have old software and update it, you only have the new software. In the first case, the value of your goods and of their use to you is more than just one drill. In the second case, you end up paying more than the price of the newest software, for just the newest software. From this, one could make the argument that the most fair…

By that argument, the best strategy is to hold off buying any software indefinitely until you are absolutely sure that there will be no future paid updates.

That doesn't work.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#169

Post by FooBarWidget »

scottbartell wrote: post #11

> The price for a Sublime Text license key has increased by $11 to $70, the first price rise in Sublime Text’s five year history That's a pretty big jump. Not saying it's not worth it.

It's not a pretty big jump. It's only slightly more than what the author needs to keep up with economic inflation. Assuming 3% inflation per year, Sublime would have costed 59*1.03^5=68.40 USD now.

Re: Sublime Text 3 Beta

#170

Post by wingerlang »

pretoriusB wrote: post #110
mikevm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who only used IDE debuggers all his (short) programming career, I was wondering, how do you debug without a visual debugger? I've seen how GDB works, and debugging this way seems much less productive. You don't see your whole source code, and you don't constantly see the values of watched or local variables, etc... Is there a different debugger you use for this task when developing using only a text editor…

> As someone who only used IDE debuggers all his (short) programming career, I was wondering, how do you debug without a visual debugger? I'd ask the reverse of you. Why do you spend time in a debugger at all? For 99% of the bugs logical thinking and a few printfs work faster and better ran blindly running around setting breakpoints and examining values.

It can be nice to pause the execution and think, then continue one line at the time and really see what is happening.

Also I hate writing prints over and over. Sometimes it is imply faster to put a breakpoint, look at the value and then pop it away. As opposed to manually writing the print, then check, and then removing it.

Thats just my opinion though.

Post reply on HN