Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
sublimetext.com
Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#2E: misspelling
Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#3Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#4Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#5I have a feeling that the recent move to OpenGL rendering for Sublime was a mistake. I know, we did with Firefox and WebRender as well. And yet, when compiling a heavy project on a modern machine, I can scroll fine in Firefox, but Sublime chugs, becoming unusable. For Sublime, it should be assumed that some code is compiling all the time!
Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#6Even though I haven't met a Sublime user in a few years, it still must be popular since it's at v4. Last time I checked, Sublime was still proprietary, which is the reason I had skipped using it. I've heard Sublime has some useful features, though. If it's in their interest, I hope they decide liberate / open their source code. E: misspelling
I must have overlooked this. While most of my programming is over ssh with vim, I’ve very much enjoyed Sublime on my own systems. Minimalism and unobtrusiveness has been very appealing to me. Free software is more important, though, so perhaps it’s back to vim, then.
I wish that the Xi editor was maintained more efficiently than it is.
Are you aware of good IDE’s besides vim and emacs? What do you use? I love vim but sometimes I just want something “friendlier” for a change.
Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#7It's been years since I used sublime text, has anything changed that users have found noteworthy since ~2016?
Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#8Re: Sublime Text 4 (Build 4126)
#9Even though I haven't met a Sublime user in a few years, it still must be popular since it's at v4. Last time I checked, Sublime was still proprietary, which is the reason I had skipped using it. I've heard Sublime has some useful features, though. If it's in their interest, I hope they decide liberate / open their source code. E: misspelling
In light of the above, it makes sense for it to be proprietary and closed source.
Were it open source, people could fork it and distribute it freely, with no remuneration going back to the developers. I doubt the developers could offer any other incentive such as support to make up the shortfall.
"Source available" licences where the user is prohibited from providing the software to others doesn't meet the FSF's definition of freedom, so even that wouldn't please everyone.