3 ms·

My main question is... what doesn't Sublime already do? I get that you want a project that's constantly getting new bugfixes and features, but there's not a wh

My main question is... what doesn't Sublime already do? I get that you want a project that's constantly getting new bugfixes and features, but there's not a whole lot that Sublime doesn't do for you as it stands. It's a mature project, most of the kinks have been ironed out. And, whatever functionality doesn't exist for it, YOU CAN BUILD. There's only one feature that I feel could benfit ST3 right now, and that's the ability to move files from the sidebar. But even then, I can't hate on the creator because that seems a bit outside the purview of a text editor in the first place (IMO that moves into IDE territory). I'd love it, and Sublime pretty much is my IDE already (what with build commands, project files, source control integration plugins, etc), but ultimately I'm fine with it not being there because I have a perfectly capable file manager open in a window right beside it. I don't mean to rag on OP, I absolutely support the mentality that if you feel like something is broken you should fix it: however, in this instance I just feel like it ain't broke.

mumphster 13y ago
Sublime isn't open source and free.
- notduncansmith 13y ago
  It's pretty much free, if you don't mind the nag dialogs. And it's well worth the money - finally, who cares if it's open source? You can build anything you need on top of it. Maybe it doesn't satisfy some lofty "open-source" philosophy, but for practical purposes, who cares?
  - mayhew 13y ago
    Learning an editor is an investment in a developers time. Software has to be updated and maintained to work on newer operating systems. With popular open source editors, you're pretty much guaranteed that the software will continue to evolve. Can't say the same about proprietary editors. I think a lot of developers could use an open source editor for their entire career, something highly unlikely to happen if they were using a proprietary one.
  - broodbucket 13y ago
    People who use ARM or other architectures that he's too lazy to make a build for
    - lttlrck 13y ago
      Lazy? That is unwarranted.
- sundvor 13y ago
  For me, ST is my primary work tool. What I paid for it is completely insignificant compared to what I earn. Speaking as someone who used Textpad from 1995 until when I discovered SublimeText last year, I love the functionality and keyboard shortcuts that have been built into it. For example, the developer appears to have lifted CTRL+F2 / F2 for bookmarks directly from Textpad, and I'm very happy they did. I for one am happy for the developer to move at his own pace. It is very solid for my purposes, now using the Ubuntu version having switched from Windows.
nsmartt 13y ago
I haven't used ST3, but ST2 doesn't build based on shebang lines and won't hide the menubar on Linux. I'm sure there are many issues I've forgotten since moving to vim as well. I can definitely see the argument that development slowing and a lack of transparency is a problem worth fixing.
unfamiliar 13y ago
For me, it's c++ highlighting and symbol identification is so bad it is useless. Native clang integration would fix this.
kyberias 13y ago
An example: it should be almost trivial to offer an ARM build of Sublime Text but the author refuses to do that even though there are 1300+ requests for that: http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/100806-armv7-or-armv6-version-of-sublime-text-2-for-linux/ http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/100806-armv7-or-armv6-... If ST were open source, someone would already have built the binaries. But no...

mumphster 13y ago

Sublime isn't open source and free.

notduncansmith 13y ago
It's pretty much free, if you don't mind the nag dialogs. And it's well worth the money - finally, who cares if it's open source? You can build anything you need on top of it. Maybe it doesn't satisfy some lofty "open-source" philosophy, but for practical purposes, who cares?
- mayhew 13y ago
  Learning an editor is an investment in a developers time. Software has to be updated and maintained to work on newer operating systems. With popular open source editors, you're pretty much guaranteed that the software will continue to evolve. Can't say the same about proprietary editors. I think a lot of developers could use an open source editor for their entire career, something highly unlikely to happen if they were using a proprietary one.
- broodbucket 13y ago
  People who use ARM or other architectures that he's too lazy to make a build for
  - lttlrck 13y ago
    Lazy? That is unwarranted.
sundvor 13y ago
For me, ST is my primary work tool. What I paid for it is completely insignificant compared to what I earn. Speaking as someone who used Textpad from 1995 until when I discovered SublimeText last year, I love the functionality and keyboard shortcuts that have been built into it. For example, the developer appears to have lifted CTRL+F2 / F2 for bookmarks directly from Textpad, and I'm very happy they did. I for one am happy for the developer to move at his own pace. It is very solid for my purposes, now using the Ubuntu version having switched from Windows.

nsmartt 13y ago

I haven't used ST3, but ST2 doesn't build based on shebang lines and won't hide the menubar on Linux. I'm sure there are many issues I've forgotten since moving to vim as well. I can definitely see the argument that development slowing and a lack of transparency is a problem worth fixing.

unfamiliar 13y ago

For me, it's c++ highlighting and symbol identification is so bad it is useless. Native clang integration would fix this.

kyberias 13y ago

An example: it should be almost trivial to offer an ARM build of Sublime Text but the author refuses to do that even though there are 1300+ requests for that: http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/100806-armv7-or-armv6-version-of-sublime-text-2-for-linux/ http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/100806-armv7-or-armv6-... If ST were open source, someone would already have built the binaries. But no...