3 ms·

I don't usually do this "argument by argument rebuttal" but since your post is extremely misleading I can't resist: > pretty much an inferior copy of an existi

I don't usually do this "argument by argument rebuttal" but since your post is extremely misleading I can't resist: > pretty much an inferior copy of an existing thing (Atom) How? For starters, it's a lot faster which appears to be a major reason why people switch > but not really built as a nice platform to be meaningfully extended Well that's up for debate now isn't it? Its plugin ecosystem disagrees with a perceived lack of extensibility. > used cynically as a wedge to pull developers into your orbit How does VSC do that? I use it and I've never seen it advertise other Microsoft products or services to me. > and controlled by a single company Fork it.

zimablue 8y ago
1. Kind of fair, it's better in some ways and worse in others. I would emphasise extensibility (this is after all an emacs thread) so I'd call it worse. You don't seem to dispute that it's a copy (in terms of engine/approach) 2. Same as 1, having read the issues and some of the source I stand by the statement. 3. Ask yourself why else Microsoft would build something 4. Fork it is naive to the point of being dishonest. You cannot outfork something with 10 professional developers, unless you're Stallman doing it full time. You only disputed some of my points, "most people will download it with spyware", "it will damage existing more truly extensible efforts" seems to be a pretty key ones you haven't disputed. If only those two were true it would be enough for me to dislike it.