This article bugs me. I would have liked them to be honest. Just say we prioritized VS Code or that handling two products of the same category is resource hungr

This article bugs me. I would have liked them to be honest. Just say we prioritized VS Code or that handling two products of the same category is resource hungry and a waste. We all understand. But this article is making it look like it's Atom's fault. They just let it die slowly so people will be pissed but move on. It's a great tactic because "sunsetting" Atom after MS takeover would've pissed the community. This was great for PR for sure. > Atom has not had significant feature development for the past several years, though we’ve conducted maintenance and security updates during this period to ensure we’re being good stewards of the project and product. Because MS made sure it didn't get any?! > As new cloud-based tools have emerged and evolved over the years, Big player being VS Code and Codespaces? > Atom community involvement has declined significantly. Because MS made sure the community was NOT backed with actions? > we are archiving Atom to prioritize technologies that enable the future of software development. This should be the first sentence. Not last.