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

Atom 1.0

blog.atom.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–459 of 459 posts

Re: Atom 1.0

#451

Post by gabeio »

tehbeard wrote: post #410
gabeio wrote: post #402

I have to say amazing job to the team. My reason: last time I looked/was regularly using Atom the generic memory size was around 100mB if I remember correctly. I just checked with 1.0 and the memory size has now dropped below Sublime Text 3.0 (~70mB) to ~60mB. (OS X.10)

Seems to still be north of 100mb on Windows machines perhaps? Same project and files open in ST3, 30mb. I may be reading it wrong though; task manager is reporting ~30mb for atom , but there's ~100mb of background processes for atom shown as well.

Interesting, maybe they made the tabs more chrome like breaking each into separate processes.

Re: Atom 1.0

#452

Post by lispm »

tbolt wrote: post #439
lispm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thirty years ago people complained that GNU Emacs needed 8 megabytes of RAM.

Thirty years ago 1MB of RAM was $800+ ...I would have complained too.

Of course, that was the reasoning behind it. RAM was expensive and allocating all the RAM on an Unix box to one process was 'unpopular'. Especially when there were more than one time-shared user on the machine.

Re: Atom 1.0

#453

Post by tragic »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #329
harperlee wrote: post #192

Wow... just downloaded the windows installer version and it autoinstalled itself wherever it chose fit, without questioning, it installed shortcuts on the start menu, placed itself on an already bloated contextual menu on several file extensions as an Open option, instead on "Open with...", etc. I usually install software on my user folder on the work laptop, as I don't have enough priviledges. This time the installe…

This frustrates me to no end. I prefer to install my software in a certain location. Having it selected for me is not okay. Nor is giving me the option to override it.

> Nor is giving me the option to override it.

Oh, come now. Even make install makes assumptions about default directories etc. The right to override is the correct level of control over target directories - people who care can make that call, and indeed will be looking for the opportunity. The rest of us would merely like to find our new piece of software in the start menu/spotlight/PATH.

Re: Atom 1.0

#454

Post by labianchin »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #339
coldtea wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still: is anyone complaining of Emacs or Vim or ST3 being slow/complex because they have installed plugins to the core? What's an example in the wild of this "cycle of bloat" in which people complain about it?

Yes, it's quite easy to get vim to a point where it's mysteriously slow at mysterious times due to random plugins installed. The lack of async makes this all the easier since everything blocks UI to begin with.

If it is slow, use vim --startuptime to check for slow plugins on startup.

Re: Atom 1.0

#455

Post by reitanqild »

radlad wrote: post #448
reitanqild wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have been using Firefox since beta, hardware hasn't always been exactly latest and greatest and I really don't get this whole Firefox is bloated meme.

Try Chrome for a month and you'll get it. I'm switching back to Firefox, but believe me, the argument holds weight.

Use Chrome and/or Chromium all time and find the speed is almost the same.

Chrome advantages for me: - install pages as apps (Mozilla prism isn't supported anymore)

Chrome disadvantages for me: -Missing all the most useful plugins

Re: Atom 1.0

#456

Post by drvortex »

zevyoura wrote: post #349
drvortex wrote: post #231

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.

Do you really do your work on a computer where an 80MB install is a problem? No argument on the file size limit.

Yes, I program on a netbook. I find the resource limitations useful in writing programs that are very efficient. I do mostly scientific programming, so if it runs on my netbook, it flies on my cluster.

Re: Atom 1.0

#457

Post by hobarrera »

chii wrote: post #395
16bytes wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair Chrome doesn't ask you either, at least on the storage location. It looks like Atom puts itself in APPDATA, which is the easiest place to install because you have known permissions and update strategies. I actually like this method. I agree that I didn't like the default shortcut and context menu entries, however.

i also hate that part of chrome - i don't have a fast disk on my default C drive, and i want to move my apps to a separate disk. But chrome doesn't let you do that easily...why do product teams think they can make the best choice for the user, without giving a way out? For a normal user, they can just use a default, and it should be fine. But let me choose if i want to, god damn it!

Can't you create a symlink to another drive, and keep chrome on the same logical location?

Re: Atom 1.0

#458

Post by hobarrera »

yathern wrote: post #366
Cyph0n wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? How is the app opened then without bundling Chromium? I built an app 4 months back and that was the only option.

It isn't really, but I guess it's so that in the future, if more apps are built with nwjs, it's possible to just download the 'runtime' and then each program sees if its installed, then downloads it if needed.

That's what we have package managers that handle dependencies for. Hopefully, that decade-old feature will be the future on windows too.

Re: Atom 1.0

#459

Post by radlad »

reitanqild wrote: post #455
radlad wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try Chrome for a month and you'll get it. I'm switching back to Firefox, but believe me, the argument holds weight.

Use Chrome and/or Chromium all time and find the speed is almost the same. Chrome advantages for me: - install pages as apps (Mozilla prism isn't supported anymore) Chrome disadvantages for me: -Missing all the most useful plugins

I find the speed difference between Chrome and Firefox to be minimal at the beginning of the day.

But by 5 o' clock when I've got three windows with twenty tabs of docs / bugs / reproduction / etc. Chrome bears the weight much more gracefully.

Post reply on HN