Textmate2 Goes Open Source • Hacker News Board

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#181

Post by pydave » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #93

shurane wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is still enough interest in the app where people will contribute all of the community's desired changes -- I hope there is. I don't get what you mean by "if there is still enough interest". If you wanted a particular feature or change, couldn't you just fork Textmate and then implement it? That's the advantage of it going open-source. We are not at the mercy of some developers who don't think our re…

> I don't get what you mean by "if there is still enough interest". If you wanted a particular feature or change, couldn't you just fork Textmate and then implement it? No, I could not. 1) I have other things to do than building my own tools. I work creating _stuff_, not creating tools. 2) You assume I have spare time to delve into the code of a project, understand the whole structure and add a feature --which might…

So "enough interest" means someone who's interested enough to overcome those three hurdles.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#182

Post by jonny_eh » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:53 PM UTC

danellis wrote: post #172

LoonyPandora wrote: post #13

It doesn't appear to be a code-dump to GitHub, which would be indicative of fading interest on behalf of the original developer. The ReadMe, build process, and licensing instructions all point towards this being a well planned Open Sourcing of a product. I'm pleased with this, and hopefully it will spur development of TM2, allowing it to truly compete with the up-and-coming Sublime Text 2.

> It doesn't appear to be a code-dump to GitHub It does appear to be, because there's no history -- everything is "Initial commit".

Maybe he wasn't using a version control system or a different one from git and didn't want to import?

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#183

Post by equalarrow » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

patrickg wrote: post #145

xyzzyb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're either forgetting, or never directly experienced, how much nicer TextMate was (and is) for dealing with files that mix different languages. PHP/HTML, Javascript/HTML, CSS/HTML, etc. TextMate automatically detects the language shifts and modifies syntax highlighting and snippet shortcuts. This was huge. No more jumping from PHP mode to HTML mode to JavaScript mode: it just worked.

Yes, the mixed mode editing, tabs and the great snippets were killer features for me to switch from 10 years emacs to TM1.

Yah, same here. I still have the muscle memory for emacs and I've gone back a few times and tried it, but honestly, the configuration was such a pain in the ass. I have .emacs files from long ago, but I tried a few months back bringing it up to date along the lines of TM1 and after about 15 mins, I just said forget it.

TM1 out of the box had all my web dev needs already there. Plus, tabs worked great. The only things I've replaced on it over the past few years were search in project (via grep in project) and the file drawer on the left (forget what that plugin was called). Speaking of plugins / bundles - those were super easy to install. For what I needed, they pretty much just always worked.

For the OP who said that Textmate didn't deserve its success I say, whatever. Everyone that I worked with over the past 5+ years doing web dev used TM. And NO ONE complained that it got in their way of getting their work done. So, cool, that's your opinion, but I think TM deserved all the success it got - it's helped me make a good amount of money over the past few years and I still use it today.

The fact that TM2 is now on Github, that's great. Will anything come of it? Dunno, but I guess I can't blame Alan for putting it on there and maybe moving on. TM1 is almost 8 years old and that's a long time to be beholden to something. Oh, and I never felt ripped off; it was money well spent and has lasted a long time..

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#184

Post by jjjjjosh » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

eblume wrote: post #155

ryanisinallofus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ST2 is native enough for me and cross-platform should be on the list of every programmer's requirements for a text editor. I use Vim on OS X right now and I like it but used ST2 just yesterday (odd timing). I agree with others that it is basically the TM2 we were waiting for.

If you haven't heard of it, ST2 has something called "Vintage Mode" which adopts a fairly large subset of the Vi/m commands. It will completely change the command set of ST2 and gets close enough to Vi for most of my needs. Notably absent is the search/replace syntax of vim, but ST2's works well enough I suppose.

The VintageEx extension for Sublime includes vim-style search and replace, among many other things.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#185

Post by petercooper » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:57 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #89

If we are completely honest, Textmate was always a sub-par editor. No Vim or Emacs style brilliantness, no BBEdit style tons of features and mature engine, no IntelliJ like, er, intelligence, no ST2 comprehensiveness, etc etc. Plus, the Textmate 1.x text engine was probably a mess too -- I remember the very first versions being laggy (and that's coming from someone who doesn't find even Eclipse laggy). That he couldn…

It's main saving grace was the many extensions it had, and looking half-decent and native on OS X.

One of the key features it had in the early days, that most other OS X editors did not, was a file tree drawer that worked well. From the terminal, you could type "mate ." and you'd have an editor with a file drawer right there. No "project" BS, no modal dialogs to navigate around files.. all very handy for working on file heavy Rails projects.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#186

Post by btipling » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 7:59 PM UTC

89a wrote: post #97

emehrkay wrote: post #38

I've been using Textmate 2 for the past week or so and I still prefer 1 + missing drawer. For me, the only thing Textmate 1 is missing are split views (something 2 is missing as well). I wonder if there is still enough interest in the app where people will contribute all of the community's desired changes -- I hope there is. Am I one of the only Textmate users who feel that Sublime isn't the right "upgrade"? I much p…

Can't stand ST2 either, if Chocolat is still going in a few months and TM2 flops I'll get it.

Chocolat was released a couple of months ago.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#187

Post by btipling » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 8:01 PM UTC

emehrkay wrote: post #38

I've been using Textmate 2 for the past week or so and I still prefer 1 + missing drawer. For me, the only thing Textmate 1 is missing are split views (something 2 is missing as well). I wonder if there is still enough interest in the app where people will contribute all of the community's desired changes -- I hope there is. Am I one of the only Textmate users who feel that Sublime isn't the right "upgrade"? I much p…

Vico is dead: http://blog.vicoapp.com/2012/07/Vico-is-dead-Long-live-Vico

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#188

Post by mdemare » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 8:02 PM UTC

batista wrote: post #158

benihana wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Textmate deserved all that success --it should have happened to a better editor. This doesn't make much sense. You say it appeared at the right time and was pretty and native on OS X. What better editors deserved the success it had that were available when TextMate was popular? Which editors were available on OS X that weren't giant IDEs or VIM and Emacs style editors that have a ridiculously steep le…

> This doesn't make much sense. You say it appeared at the right time and was pretty and native on OS X. What better editors deserved the success it had that were available when TextMate was popular? The fact that there wasn't another editor that fulfilled all those "needs" at the time (mainly: simple, native looking) does not mean that it deserved it's success. What I'm saying is, it got its success not because it w…

> The fact that there wasn't another editor that fulfilled all those "needs" at the time (mainly: simple, native looking) does not mean that it deserved it's success. What I'm saying is, it got its success not because it was better than the competition but because there was no competition.

What kind of doublespeak is that? If there's a race, and you're the only one who shows up, you deserve to win, period.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#189

Post by mdemare » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 8:06 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #185

batista wrote: post #89

If we are completely honest, Textmate was always a sub-par editor. No Vim or Emacs style brilliantness, no BBEdit style tons of features and mature engine, no IntelliJ like, er, intelligence, no ST2 comprehensiveness, etc etc. Plus, the Textmate 1.x text engine was probably a mess too -- I remember the very first versions being laggy (and that's coming from someone who doesn't find even Eclipse laggy). That he couldn…

It's main saving grace was the many extensions it had, and looking half-decent and native on OS X. One of the key features it had in the early days, that most other OS X editors did not, was a file tree drawer that worked well. From the terminal, you could type "mate ." and you'd have an editor with a file drawer right there. No "project" BS, no modal dialogs to navigate around files.. all very handy for working on f…

Exactly. Window is folder and tabs are files, that arrangement feels completely natural, and Vim never got there with all its own buffers and windows and tabs and so on. Nothing else ever got there (on OSX) until Sublime.

Re: Textmate2 Goes Open Source

#190

Post by pydave » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 8:06 PM UTC

jwarzech wrote: post #171

abc_lisper wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. Git has plugins to pull from other repositories.

I've never used the git transfer plugins but I've had some past headaches moving to different source control systems. I usually just start a fresh repository with the latest snapshot and keep the old system available if anyone has to really go back that far (in my experience after a few weeks no one really ever has had to do this).

Weird, what kinds of headaches? So long as the HEAD of the converted repo has the same code as the snapshot, what's the difference? Does the conversion break the new repository somehow? (The only way I can think of that's not a bug is slowdown.)