7 ms·

> and there's no compilation step or anything -- then it's almost a fundamental paradigm shift for what desktop software could be. > It already makes me dream o

by adamors 13y ago

> and there's no compilation step or anything -- then it's almost a fundamental paradigm shift for what desktop software could be. > It already makes me dream of a word processor I could hack like that, or a music player. Just by opening up a text editor. It's an inspiring thought. Not to rain on your parade or anything, but you can already do this with Emacs, not to mention that Emacs is free, open source software. Atom is not only not open source but their readme says it won't even be free after the beta. Emacs has been around for almost 40 years, and because it's FOSS it will be around for at least another 40. Editors like Atom come and go.

michaelmior 13y ago
> Atom is free during the beta period. Where does it say it won't be free after the beta period?
- adamors 13y ago
  Well, one can only assume, based on the wording they use here: https://github.com/atom/welcome/blob/master/lib/welcome.md https://github.com/atom/welcome/blob/master/lib/welcome.md > Atom is free during the beta period.
  - dustyleary 13y ago
    How refreshing, a correct usage of "the exception that proves the rule"!
    - doorhammer 13y ago
      And there goes four hours of my night to wikipedia
  - atommclain 13y ago
    This reminds me of one of Mitch Hedberg's more famous jokes: "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    One can assume that, but that's not what it says. The statement that the editor is free during beta could mean "we haven't figured out whether to sell it after the beta, sell services around it, or develop integration with our other services and keep it free to enhance our overall value proposition."
- kuntau 13y ago
  Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. > http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/9 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/9
crazygringo 13y ago
True, but it's a question of accessibility. Far more people can program in JavaScript than Lisp, and far more people use GUI desktop software that follows traditional GUI user-interface paradigms, than do things inside their terminal. (Edit: or terminal-style buffers/frames.) So that's why my statement was limited to what "desktop software" could be. :) I mean, I use LibreOffice, which is FOSS, but I am never going to touch its code in a million years. The cost-to-benefit ratio is too high. But Atom makes doing that sound almost trivial. That's the paradigm shift.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  so write ruby or python for vim then. not saying vim doesn't have it shortcomings, but people always forget that a scripting language for random app xyz still means you have to learn it's grammar. just like people who use ruby motion have to painfully learn that in the end while it looks like ruby it's still cocoa.
- adamors 13y ago
  Emacs is GUI desktop software. Few people use it in a terminal. Also, people didn't born knowing Javascript. They learnt it. And one could argue that Lisp is just as easy to learn, if not easier.
  - pete_aykroyd 13y ago
    I mostly agree with that although I think it's also kind of irrelevant in a practical sense because many programmers already have to know javascript for their work so you get a lot more people who can contribute right away. Aside from that -- lisp or javascript as the extension language, I'd love to see a brand-new extensible editor like emacs just to have a shot at changing terminology and some of the APIs. Emacs terminology is a little off-putting because it was invented before the GUIs were widely adopted so it doesn't map that well. I also find some of the APIs a bit weird, but that could just be me.
    - adamors 13y ago
      It's true that a lot of people work with Javascript, but honestly I wouldn't say that they can contribute to anything right away. A lot of these people don't know more than $('#element').hide(); In fact, I would wager that there are more potential contributors to Emacs than there are to Atom.
ibrahima 13y ago
Oh what, it's not open source? The little interest I had in this just evaporated. I would definitely be interested in something like Emacs built on modern technologies, but Emacs is already there and quite good. I feel like something like this could be neat, just because far more people know HTML/JS than Elisp, but if it's not open source that kills my enthusiasm for the project.
- dusklight 13y ago
  check out lighttable [http://www.chris-granger.com/2014/01/07/light-table-is-open-source/ http://www.chris-granger.com/2014/01/07/light-table-is-open-...]
  - lord_quas 13y ago
    Checkout lighttable.el https://github.com/Fuco1/litable https://github.com/Fuco1/litable
    - reeses 13y ago
      Nice. I was able to read and understand the whole implementation on my phone. Of course, thanks to Apple, I can't load and eval it, but I will take it for a spin when I get to a machine. :)
- ytpete 13y ago
  Brackets (http://brackets.io/ http://brackets.io/) is another option - it's MIT-licensed, and also written in JavaScript.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cmelbye 13y ago
Atom is not only not open source but ... Do you have a source for this? I'd be very disappointed to hear that if it were true. EDIT: It appears that this isn't true. From a GitHub employee in freenode/##atom: <jonrohan> EvanDotPro: it will be open source, and other platforms, when it's out of beta <chance> jonrohan: where are you getting that information? <jonrohan> chance: i work at github
- girvo 13y ago
  > not only open source That means the opposite of what you thought it did :)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tricolon 13y ago
    It was > not only not
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  From Tom Preston-Warner: http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 > Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. Either jonrohan is misinformed, or he's using a rather tortured definition of "open source" - even the Open Source Initiative would disagree with that usage[0]. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that Github doesn't seem to be on the same page internally about this; it's a rather important piece of information. [0]http://opensource.org/definition http://opensource.org/definition

by adamors 13y ago

michaelmior 13y ago

> Atom is free during the beta period. Where does it say it won't be free after the beta period?

adamors 13y ago
Well, one can only assume, based on the wording they use here: https://github.com/atom/welcome/blob/master/lib/welcome.md https://github.com/atom/welcome/blob/master/lib/welcome.md > Atom is free during the beta period.
- dustyleary 13y ago
  How refreshing, a correct usage of "the exception that proves the rule"!
  - doorhammer 13y ago
    And there goes four hours of my night to wikipedia
- atommclain 13y ago
  This reminds me of one of Mitch Hedberg's more famous jokes: "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  One can assume that, but that's not what it says. The statement that the editor is free during beta could mean "we haven't figured out whether to sell it after the beta, sell services around it, or develop integration with our other services and keep it free to enhance our overall value proposition."
kuntau 13y ago
Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. > http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/9 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/9

crazygringo 13y ago

True, but it's a question of accessibility. Far more people can program in JavaScript than Lisp, and far more people use GUI desktop software that follows traditional GUI user-interface paradigms, than do things inside their terminal. (Edit: or terminal-style buffers/frames.) So that's why my statement was limited to what "desktop software" could be. :) I mean, I use LibreOffice, which is FOSS, but I am never going to touch its code in a million years. The cost-to-benefit ratio is too high. But Atom makes doing that sound almost trivial. That's the paradigm shift.

rjzzleep 13y ago
so write ruby or python for vim then. not saying vim doesn't have it shortcomings, but people always forget that a scripting language for random app xyz still means you have to learn it's grammar. just like people who use ruby motion have to painfully learn that in the end while it looks like ruby it's still cocoa.
adamors 13y ago
Emacs is GUI desktop software. Few people use it in a terminal. Also, people didn't born knowing Javascript. They learnt it. And one could argue that Lisp is just as easy to learn, if not easier.
- pete_aykroyd 13y ago
  I mostly agree with that although I think it's also kind of irrelevant in a practical sense because many programmers already have to know javascript for their work so you get a lot more people who can contribute right away. Aside from that -- lisp or javascript as the extension language, I'd love to see a brand-new extensible editor like emacs just to have a shot at changing terminology and some of the APIs. Emacs terminology is a little off-putting because it was invented before the GUIs were widely adopted so it doesn't map that well. I also find some of the APIs a bit weird, but that could just be me.
  - adamors 13y ago
    It's true that a lot of people work with Javascript, but honestly I wouldn't say that they can contribute to anything right away. A lot of these people don't know more than $('#element').hide(); In fact, I would wager that there are more potential contributors to Emacs than there are to Atom.

ibrahima 13y ago

Oh what, it's not open source? The little interest I had in this just evaporated. I would definitely be interested in something like Emacs built on modern technologies, but Emacs is already there and quite good. I feel like something like this could be neat, just because far more people know HTML/JS than Elisp, but if it's not open source that kills my enthusiasm for the project.

dusklight 13y ago
check out lighttable [http://www.chris-granger.com/2014/01/07/light-table-is-open-source/ http://www.chris-granger.com/2014/01/07/light-table-is-open-...]
- lord_quas 13y ago
  Checkout lighttable.el https://github.com/Fuco1/litable https://github.com/Fuco1/litable
  - reeses 13y ago
    Nice. I was able to read and understand the whole implementation on my phone. Of course, thanks to Apple, I can't load and eval it, but I will take it for a spin when I get to a machine. :)
ytpete 13y ago
Brackets (http://brackets.io/ http://brackets.io/) is another option - it's MIT-licensed, and also written in JavaScript.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cmelbye 13y ago

Atom is not only not open source but ... Do you have a source for this? I'd be very disappointed to hear that if it were true. EDIT: It appears that this isn't true. From a GitHub employee in freenode/##atom: <jonrohan> EvanDotPro: it will be open source, and other platforms, when it's out of beta <chance> jonrohan: where are you getting that information? <jonrohan> chance: i work at github

girvo 13y ago
> not only open source That means the opposite of what you thought it did :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tricolon 13y ago
  It was > not only not
chimeracoder 13y ago
From Tom Preston-Warner: http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 > Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. Either jonrohan is misinformed, or he's using a rather tortured definition of "open source" - even the Open Source Initiative would disagree with that usage[0]. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that Github doesn't seem to be on the same page internally about this; it's a rather important piece of information. [0]http://opensource.org/definition http://opensource.org/definition