241–250 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Atom is free during the beta period. Where does it say it won't be free after the beta period?
Well, one can only assume, based on the wording they use here: https://github.com/atom/welcome/blob/master/lib/welcome.md > Atom is free during the beta period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The download is only available for Mac today, but we are working on the Linux and Windows builds.
Any chance for ChromeOS support?
I've just had play around with the beta. It looks like it's using a version of CodeMirror 4 (as it has multiple ranges). Fairly fast but it doesn't match Sublime Text just yet Initial impressions: it's early days but this thing is just oozing for customisation. The fact it's written in JS means writing packages is pretty simple compared to Python for ST; we're going to see TONNES of addons for it. I can already think…
This isn't why it's going to be popular for plugin development though. Sublime plugins are Python, which isn't that hard to learn.
Atom's plugins are worth looking forward to if the API is more extensive than Sublime. There is too much you can't do in Sublime Text plugin authoring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but it's a question of accessibility. Far more people can program in JavaScript than Lisp, and far more people use GUI desktop software that follows traditional GUI user-interface paradigms, than do things inside their terminal. (Edit: or terminal-style buffers/frames.) So that's why my statement was limited to what " desktop software" could be. :) I mean, I use LibreOffice, which is FOSS, but I am never going…
Emacs is GUI desktop software. Few people use it in a terminal. Also, people didn't born knowing Javascript. They learnt it. And one could argue that Lisp is just as easy to learn, if not easier.
Myself included (:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you choose to use Windows today?
Cheaper hardware, Steam (and other games in general), testing on the platform used by a majority of our users, and more customization available than OS X, for starters.
This.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and there's no compilation step or anything -- then it's almost a fundamental paradigm shift for what desktop software could be. > It already makes me dream of a word processor I could hack like that, or a music player. Just by opening up a text editor. It's an inspiring thought. Not to rain on your parade or anything, but you can already do this with Emacs, not to mention that Emacs is free, open source software.…
True, but it's a question of accessibility. Far more people can program in JavaScript than Lisp, and far more people use GUI desktop software that follows traditional GUI user-interface paradigms, than do things inside their terminal. (Edit: or terminal-style buffers/frames.) So that's why my statement was limited to what " desktop software" could be. :) I mean, I use LibreOffice, which is FOSS, but I am never going…
You can make desktop apps in Python, Ruby, Tcl, hell even PHP for a long time now. No compilation needed.
Whether this works effectively or not comes rests almost entirely on how good their architecture is. "Hackable" doesn't mean anything if the codebase is a coupled mess. Given GH's pedigree, I don't expect that this is the case; which means there will be some ramp-up time learning the various subsystems.
Desktop apps aren't things that you can cram into this week's hipster JS framework.
> A hackable text editor for the 21st century I'll fix: A proprietary (unhackable) text editor that only runs on OS X. I imagine that web developers will drool over this.