I am loathe to install something like Atom with a 4MB limit on file size and 80 MB install size when Sublime Text does the same or better in a 8 MB install package with no limits.
Atom 1.0
231–240 of 459 posts
Re: Atom 1.0
#232Atom is the ONLY editor which cannot handle my keyboard layout properly so I can't write brackets :D ([]) I reported it on the first day when the alpha came out, still no fix for this. Let me put it this way:
I CAN'T WRITE BRACKETS IN A TEXT EDITOR. LOL
Re: Atom 1.0
#233I've gotta say, honestly, I'm preferring Visual Studio Code over Atom simply due to the fact that it seems MUCH more stable and lightweight. Atom is very visually appealing, and I'm a fan of the project, in general, but it constantly freezes up and crashes on me. I think I'll be sticking with VS Code & Sublime.
Visual Studio code needs to let me make CoreCLR executables on OSX and Linux, yesterday.
DNX does. Right now. You just want it to trigger 'dnu package' for you?
Re: Atom 1.0
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the Cycle of Bloat. 1. Develop tool. It's small and fast and minimal! Woo! 2. It's easy to modify because it's so small! Woo! 3. Look, there's a budding ecosystem of packages! Woo! (Let's not talk about the fact the packages exist precisely because the original product wasn't big enough.) 4. Oh dear, some of them conflict, a lot of them suck. Well, here's some winners, let's pull them into the core. Now the base…
Do people believe that having access to packages and add-ons makes an editor (or whatever else) "bloated and slow"? First, whatever you don't use, it's not even loaded in memory. Second, bloated is all about having tons of options you don't need or use. Not about adding stuff you DO need piecemeal. Third, bloat is mostly a UI thing, not a "number of add-ons" or "too many lines of code" thing. Programs don't get slow…
Don't know about Eclipse, but NetBeans runs much faster than Atom on my Mac, with far fewer pauses. Unfortunately, Atom is built in a language with a much worse GC than NetBeans (or IntelliJ, or Eclipse).
Re: Atom 1.0
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the Cycle of Bloat. 1. Develop tool. It's small and fast and minimal! Woo! 2. It's easy to modify because it's so small! Woo! 3. Look, there's a budding ecosystem of packages! Woo! (Let's not talk about the fact the packages exist precisely because the original product wasn't big enough.) 4. Oh dear, some of them conflict, a lot of them suck. Well, here's some winners, let's pull them into the core. Now the base…
You're probably one of those people that pull in jQuery to use just the selector.
I must say, I greatly underestimated the degree to which the word "bloat" triggers all the bad side-taking rationality-bypassing political thinking and socializing mechanisms in programmer's brains.
I'd love to promise I'll never do it again, but I'm tempted to try to draw the poison out, too. Bloat ought to be a technical concept, not a political one.
Re: Atom 1.0
#236Atom is the ONLY editor which cannot handle my keyboard layout properly so I can't write brackets :D ([]) I reported it on the first day when the alpha came out, still no fix for this. Let me put it this way: I CAN'T WRITE BRACKETS IN A TEXT EDITOR. LOL
Link the GH issue please.
Re: Atom 1.0
#237Atom is the ONLY editor which cannot handle my keyboard layout properly so I can't write brackets :D ([]) I reported it on the first day when the alpha came out, still no fix for this. Let me put it this way: I CAN'T WRITE BRACKETS IN A TEXT EDITOR. LOL
Link the GH issue please.
Re: Atom 1.0
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really only a problem if you're contributing to the core, right? You can write your own packages in JS, and if you're just a user of the editor I don't see how that matters.
The UI library is in coffee script; if you want use a UI for your plugin, youre pretty much stuck using it. (..and yes, its technically possible to do with plain js, but I challenge any of the 'but just use js' folk to link to a popular plugin, with a UI, that does)
You can call CoffeeScript functions from JavaScript and vice versa. There's no reason that you can't use the UI library from code written in JS. The fact that its written in CoffeeScript is an implementation detail
Re: Atom 1.0
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your characterization. Take jQuery for example. 1. Small, fast and minimal. 2. Easy to create plugins. 3. Budding ecosystem and explosion of plugins. 4. Conflicts ensued and some plugins got pulled into the core project. Eventually, the growth of jQuery tapered off as the project stabilized. Not only did the size taper off, it got smaller as well. After nearly 10 years, we're talking about a payload o…
"The cycle of bloat doesn't always take hold" Don't recall claiming everything is under the "cycle of bloat". The fact that I gave specific examples was a pretty big clue that it's not all equal.... and jQuery isn't in any of them, either. Edit: Sorry, is there something wrong with my pointing out that I didn't ever claim the things being imputed to me?
I don't recall accusing you of claiming everything is under the cycle of bloat.
What I disagreed with was the way you characterized and described the growth of pluggable software. You might not have intended it, but a reasonable reader would have interpreted your post as a, "This is what happens to software with an extensible plugin system".
Re: Atom 1.0
#240I've gotta say, honestly, I'm preferring Visual Studio Code over Atom simply due to the fact that it seems MUCH more stable and lightweight. Atom is very visually appealing, and I'm a fan of the project, in general, but it constantly freezes up and crashes on me. I think I'll be sticking with VS Code & Sublime.
[deleted]