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

TextMate 2.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: TextMate 2.0

#181

Post by wayneftw »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #172
wayneftw wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you, but I think that if the only thing that VS Code did well was to highlight code, far fewer people would be using it because VS Code is not just a text editor. Far from it. Once you add panels and toolbars with all sorts of GUI tools, consoles, language servers, remote editing, debugging and built-in commands for common external tools like Git - you've got yourself an IDE in my opinion. However, aside from…

> Once you add panels and toolbars with all sorts of GUI tools, consoles, language servers, remote editing, debugging and built-in commands for common external tools like Git - you've got yourself an IDE in my opinion. You can have all (or none) of those features in either an editor or an IDE. The core idea of an IDE was to provide a single UI for all aspects of development — which originally included source code edi…

I don’t know, that’s kind of an arbitrary differentiation. I guess the full Visual Studio is not technically an IDE either then because the GUI process itself does not compile anything. It calls out to the standard Microsoft C++ compiler or the dotnet compiler or whatever else it happens to be working with... like Python.

From the point of you of the user they are all an IDE I think.

Re: TextMate 2.0

#182

Post by hhas01 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #173
shp0ngle wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AppleScript is a great idea in how everything is scriptable. Unfortunately, the language itself is a horrible abomination from the wild 1990s days of Mac OS... sorry, now macOS... and writing absolutely anything in it is painful. I feel like Apple introduced Automator to overcome the pain of AppleScript, but it never really caught on (I don't even know if Automator is still on macOS.... yep it is, still with the cute…

The language itself is pretty bonkers, to be sure. I think the Amiga probably did this better with ARexx, simply because Rexx was much better for "friendly scripting language." I was going to say I'd made my peace with AppleScript, but it'd be more honest to say "I've gotten better at beating AppleScript into submission." iOS Workflow/Shortcuts is what Automator should have been in a lot of ways. If Automator was sup…

Expect Shortcuts to land in 10.16. Most of the plumbing’s already in 10.15; it’s just not public yet.

https://twitter.com/stroughtonsmith/status/11359563313603461...

Re: TextMate 2.0

#183

Post by hhas01 »

Gaelan wrote: post #107
shp0ngle wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AppleScript is a great idea in how everything is scriptable. Unfortunately, the language itself is a horrible abomination from the wild 1990s days of Mac OS... sorry, now macOS... and writing absolutely anything in it is painful. I feel like Apple introduced Automator to overcome the pain of AppleScript, but it never really caught on (I don't even know if Automator is still on macOS.... yep it is, still with the cute…

"AppleScript" can do JS now, but it's so clunky and badly documented that it's barely worth it.

JXA, like Scripting Bridge before it, was shipped crippled and buggy and abandoned once it was out the door. Apple finally disbanded the Mac Automation team and fired the PM responsible a couple years ago.

In fact, there are several production-tested Apple event bridges that totally wipe the floor with Apple’s failed attempts, but caveat emptor as I don’t do support:

http://appscript.sourceforge.net https://www.npmjs.com/package/nodeautomation https://hhas.bitbucket.io/welcome.html

We’ll see what happens when Shortcuts lands in 10.16, but I’d say the chances of Apple event automation having a long and healthy life ahead are 50/50, at best.

Re: TextMate 2.0

#185

Post by rahoulb »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #176
rahoulb wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to use Coda and Coda 2 - I loved them, and they were true "Mac" apps. But I switched to Sublime and Vim for one reason alone - Cmd-T/Ctrl-P fuzzy file opener. That one feature makes such a difference to me as I switch between big project trees that I can't do without it. I'd happily pay Panic for Nova if they add that back in.

Coda does have "quick open," with ^Q, doesn't it? (Ironically, as I get more deeply into Vim, I've found the :find and :buffer commands to be faster and just as useful as the CtrlP plugin, even if they're not quite as forgivingly fuzzy.)

^Q isn't as fuzzy as I'd like it - I do a lot of rails work and being able to type apvwpeopsho to match app/views/people/show.html.erb is really useful

Re: TextMate 2.0

#186

Post by JohnBooty »

jacobolus wrote: post #120
JohnBooty wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonderful write-up. > Aside: Sublime Text was an unauthorized (and for at least the first few years half-baked) rip-off This puzzles me though. What "authorization" should Sublime's author have sought? I don't know why application XYZ would/should need permission/blessing to be compatible with application ABC's plugins. To me it's just a completely sensible decision; why would the author(s) of application XYZ want to…

I think it’s unethical to copy an existing program’s features one by one, as precisely as possible, while adding nothing novel. If you want to make software, get your own ideas. Copying something is a lot easier than inventing it for yourself, which requires doing real research. If you try ripping off large companies, you run the risk of getting sued. But if you do it to a 1-person company, you can generally get away…

    I think it’s unethical to copy an existing program’s features one by one, as precisely as possible
Completely disagree that this is what ST did. Implementing TextMate's bundle/syntaxes APIs != creating a clone.

I'd argue that conceptually, TextMate borrowed at least as much from Emacs and BBEdit as ST did from TextMate.

After all, what was TextMate's raison d'être? It was not some totally new idea. It was a successful iteration of existing ideas. It was lightweight like a text editor, but highly extendable via scripting.

So, it was like Emacs, except not quite as infinitely extendable, but more friendly and had a native OSX GUI interface. And it was like BBEdit, except more extendable. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this -- I used BBEdit a bit back in the day but never dove too deeply into it)

ST iterated further upon TM's ideas and others. Yes, it implemented TM's bundles and syntaxes for compatibility reasons, which I would call a very good thing because why invent those wheels again. Any new entry into an existing software category certainly should leverage the existing ecosystem to the fullest extent possible, unless there is a very good reason not to.

It's been years since I used TM but I think ST's command palette was a big innovation over TM, and more keyboard-friendly. ST's integrated Package Control is also something I don't believe TM has an equivalent for. And ST is of course cross-platform: it's not like using TM is even an option if you're on Windows/Linux.

So I really reject the talk of ST being a "ripoff". Good software should borrow ideas and leverage existing work whenever possible. And it's demonstrably false to claim that ST offered nothing new, or that TM itself didn't borrow very heavily from other editors.

Post reply on HN