7 ms·

After years of using it, I finally just bought a Sublime license. It's about as close to perfect as an editor gets for me - fast, stable, powerful, extensible,

by cheald 12y ago

After years of using it, I finally just bought a Sublime license. It's about as close to perfect as an editor gets for me - fast, stable, powerful, extensible, portable, and very low cognitive overhead. Kudos to the Sublime folks.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
I've been a licensed user for a couple years. I use it almost every day, quite happily.
corobo 12y ago
Personally I wasn't convinced until I also tried out the "Sublime SFTP" plugin.. I'm never going back.
- bartekko 12y ago
  I didn't know this existed, thanks for that!
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  Hopefully in this day and age, you are using that plugin to SFTP into a virtual machine locally.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    No clue what that is meant to mean. SFTP is as secure as any other SSH connection and people use those extremely regularly to remotely administer hosts which lack a VPN. Aside from terrible Windows support SFTP is likely one of the best secure remote file transfer protocols around (in particular for freeform file transfers, rather than structured like AS2 or similar). Certainly better than FTPS.
    - geocar 12y ago
      will is probably referring to version control/change tracking, and not to "security".
      - will_work4tears 12y ago
        Correct, workflow. Even with the tools themselves, rather than "best practice" it seems mind boggling using SFTP within the editor. With things like SASS, bower, grunt, npm and the like - it doesn't even seem like it'd be compatible.
        path411 12y ago
        Well I use a dev virtual server instead of a local vm. I enjoy working in a windows environment, but would rather not struggle with the discrepancies between running an app on windows with something like xampp vs apache on centos which are my web servers. I use a sftp atom plugin to workin on/save to my dev server and just use ssh to do git/etc right on the server. I don't see how this workflow is very different than working locally and using a command prompt for all of your tools.
      - Someone1234 12y ago
        That's still a silly point. For security reasons a lot of people don't hook their source control directly into production web-servers, and instead deploy from a secured environment hooked into secure control onto production (which would still require something like e.g. SFTP for the actual transfer). Regardless their point was poorly explained/explored.
  - joerobot 12y ago
    I only do web development occasionally so excuse my ignorance, but what is the common way to deploy a website now?
    - will_work4tears 12y ago
      We use git and have branches designated as Dev, Test, Prod (etc) with webhooks or other scripts that automatically deploy the branches based on the workflow. At my last job (small webshop) it was automated, but my current job is more "Enterprisey" and we have separation of duties and other work flow constraints which mean that I never push anything to production myself (or test for that matter).
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      I do, and to be honest with you it is more fractured than it has ever been. Back in the 90s "everyone" used FTP. Now the methods of deployment vary wildly including but not limited to: - FTP (over VPN), "Shared Folders" (SMB, over VPN), RDC/RDP (seriously, often not over VPN) - Git clients (and other source control, controlled over SSH), SFTP, FTPS, CMS (over HTTP/S), SCP, rsync/robocopy (over VPN) - Virtualisation trickery: Like cloning, snapshots, and shared data storage. The "best" way depends on a lot of factors. For example are you doing staging? Do you even have source control? How many servers? Etc. There is no one size fits all solution. For a small host or personal site, you can likely do what everyone else does: SFTP on Linux/BSD, and FTPS on Windows (via Filezilla Server).
  - lolwhat 12y ago
    lmao i actually used to do that once but the overhead was too much (i save frequently), so i just bought a desktop and i x11 over ssh on the remote's sublime. SFTP was a really good extension though.
  - corobo 12y ago
    I develop from multiple machines depending on where I am. The dev server that then does all the version control bits as if it were the local server. It's also a lot beefier than my laptop. Also bear in mind these are my own one-man-job projects and websites. Made do with what I have else I'll spend years setting up the perfect system and have created nothing
ghshephard 12y ago
Likewise - It was over the winter, when I was back home in Canada, and remarked that I still hadn't purchased a license, but, in the last 6 months, had probably spent 3-4 hours/day in Sublime. In particular, making a lot of use of Sublimerge to do fast visual diffs, really won me over. Even though on remote hosts I still live in vim, I really, really love this tool when working locally. Hopefully I'll be a little faster to purchase an upgrade license when a new version of Sublime is released. Probably One of the most important software tools I've used in the last year from a personal productivity perspective.
swah 12y ago
Agreed, but the extensibility is very limited. Just look at the contortions this little package has to go through to apply a color to portions of text: https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/blob/master/ColorHighlighter.py#L507 https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/blob/master/Co... It has to create and apply a fake theme merged with your current theme so colors can be added "dynamically"[1]. The ancient Emacs (I hate a hate/love relationship with it) can do this is several ways, the "modern" one are overlays IIRC. [1] As expected, this will lead to bugs related to the users' color schemes: https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/issues https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/issues
- theVirginian 12y ago
  I get so sick of listening to people be so negative in the comments on this site. Can't you think of anything better to say than that it "sucks"
  - swah 12y ago
    Fixed. But the criticism towards ST3 shall continue, since Jon doesn't seem to hear the community at all. (But the strategy works for him, so...)
mrec 12y ago
I'm the opposite - bought a license years ago but don't actually use it for much except plaintext. In my experience the core editor is fast and rock solid, but I think every single extension I've tried has been somewhere between glitchy and completely broken, and debugging/fixing them has soaked up more time than they'd save if they worked perfectly. Part of the problem may be that extensions seem remarkably keen to take giant dependencies. I think one wanted a full node.js install to do JS linting. Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent.
- LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
  > Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent. Every lint extension I've seen seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is.
  - jdc0589 12y ago
    > seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is. This is the biggest problem with sublime plugins. dependencies. It is also 100% why I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write (which has really just been JsFormat thus far)
    - mrec 12y ago
      > I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write Is there a Package Control channel that ONLY lists packages following that noble rule? I'd be a lot more willing to try things out from that.
  - lobster_johnson 12y ago
    All the ones I use (cppcheck, jshint, jsxhint, ruby, clang) require that you have the toolchains already installed. Seems like a pretty consistent design. Those are the official linters [1], though. Edit: Checked a bunch of the others, including those for Lua, XML and Python. None of them come bundled with the underlying tool. [1] https://github.com/SublimeLinter https://github.com/SublimeLinter
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by cheald 12y ago

spacemanmatt 12y ago

I've been a licensed user for a couple years. I use it almost every day, quite happily.

corobo 12y ago

Personally I wasn't convinced until I also tried out the "Sublime SFTP" plugin.. I'm never going back.

bartekko 12y ago
I didn't know this existed, thanks for that!
will_work4tears 12y ago
Hopefully in this day and age, you are using that plugin to SFTP into a virtual machine locally.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  No clue what that is meant to mean. SFTP is as secure as any other SSH connection and people use those extremely regularly to remotely administer hosts which lack a VPN. Aside from terrible Windows support SFTP is likely one of the best secure remote file transfer protocols around (in particular for freeform file transfers, rather than structured like AS2 or similar). Certainly better than FTPS.
  - geocar 12y ago
    will is probably referring to version control/change tracking, and not to "security".
    - will_work4tears 12y ago
      Correct, workflow. Even with the tools themselves, rather than "best practice" it seems mind boggling using SFTP within the editor. With things like SASS, bower, grunt, npm and the like - it doesn't even seem like it'd be compatible.
      - path411 12y ago
        Well I use a dev virtual server instead of a local vm. I enjoy working in a windows environment, but would rather not struggle with the discrepancies between running an app on windows with something like xampp vs apache on centos which are my web servers. I use a sftp atom plugin to workin on/save to my dev server and just use ssh to do git/etc right on the server. I don't see how this workflow is very different than working locally and using a command prompt for all of your tools.
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      That's still a silly point. For security reasons a lot of people don't hook their source control directly into production web-servers, and instead deploy from a secured environment hooked into secure control onto production (which would still require something like e.g. SFTP for the actual transfer). Regardless their point was poorly explained/explored.
- joerobot 12y ago
  I only do web development occasionally so excuse my ignorance, but what is the common way to deploy a website now?
  - will_work4tears 12y ago
    We use git and have branches designated as Dev, Test, Prod (etc) with webhooks or other scripts that automatically deploy the branches based on the workflow. At my last job (small webshop) it was automated, but my current job is more "Enterprisey" and we have separation of duties and other work flow constraints which mean that I never push anything to production myself (or test for that matter).
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    I do, and to be honest with you it is more fractured than it has ever been. Back in the 90s "everyone" used FTP. Now the methods of deployment vary wildly including but not limited to: - FTP (over VPN), "Shared Folders" (SMB, over VPN), RDC/RDP (seriously, often not over VPN) - Git clients (and other source control, controlled over SSH), SFTP, FTPS, CMS (over HTTP/S), SCP, rsync/robocopy (over VPN) - Virtualisation trickery: Like cloning, snapshots, and shared data storage. The "best" way depends on a lot of factors. For example are you doing staging? Do you even have source control? How many servers? Etc. There is no one size fits all solution. For a small host or personal site, you can likely do what everyone else does: SFTP on Linux/BSD, and FTPS on Windows (via Filezilla Server).
- lolwhat 12y ago
  lmao i actually used to do that once but the overhead was too much (i save frequently), so i just bought a desktop and i x11 over ssh on the remote's sublime. SFTP was a really good extension though.
- corobo 12y ago
  I develop from multiple machines depending on where I am. The dev server that then does all the version control bits as if it were the local server. It's also a lot beefier than my laptop. Also bear in mind these are my own one-man-job projects and websites. Made do with what I have else I'll spend years setting up the perfect system and have created nothing

ghshephard 12y ago

Likewise - It was over the winter, when I was back home in Canada, and remarked that I still hadn't purchased a license, but, in the last 6 months, had probably spent 3-4 hours/day in Sublime. In particular, making a lot of use of Sublimerge to do fast visual diffs, really won me over. Even though on remote hosts I still live in vim, I really, really love this tool when working locally. Hopefully I'll be a little faster to purchase an upgrade license when a new version of Sublime is released. Probably One of the most important software tools I've used in the last year from a personal productivity perspective.

swah 12y ago

Agreed, but the extensibility is very limited. Just look at the contortions this little package has to go through to apply a color to portions of text: https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/blob/master/ColorHighlighter.py#L507 https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/blob/master/Co... It has to create and apply a fake theme merged with your current theme so colors can be added "dynamically"[1]. The ancient Emacs (I hate a hate/love relationship with it) can do this is several ways, the "modern" one are overlays IIRC. [1] As expected, this will lead to bugs related to the users' color schemes: https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/issues https://github.com/Monnoroch/ColorHighlighter/issues

theVirginian 12y ago
I get so sick of listening to people be so negative in the comments on this site. Can't you think of anything better to say than that it "sucks"
- swah 12y ago
  Fixed. But the criticism towards ST3 shall continue, since Jon doesn't seem to hear the community at all. (But the strategy works for him, so...)

mrec 12y ago

I'm the opposite - bought a license years ago but don't actually use it for much except plaintext. In my experience the core editor is fast and rock solid, but I think every single extension I've tried has been somewhere between glitchy and completely broken, and debugging/fixing them has soaked up more time than they'd save if they worked perfectly. Part of the problem may be that extensions seem remarkably keen to take giant dependencies. I think one wanted a full node.js install to do JS linting. Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent.

LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
> Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent. Every lint extension I've seen seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is.
- jdc0589 12y ago
  > seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is. This is the biggest problem with sublime plugins. dependencies. It is also 100% why I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write (which has really just been JsFormat thus far)
  - mrec 12y ago
    > I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write Is there a Package Control channel that ONLY lists packages following that noble rule? I'd be a lot more willing to try things out from that.
- lobster_johnson 12y ago
  All the ones I use (cppcheck, jshint, jsxhint, ruby, clang) require that you have the toolchains already installed. Seems like a pretty consistent design. Those are the official linters [1], though. Edit: Checked a bunch of the others, including those for Lua, XML and Python. None of them come bundled with the underlying tool. [1] https://github.com/SublimeLinter https://github.com/SublimeLinter

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]