12 ms·

If you're happy with emacs or vim then you probably shouldn't use it. Many people aren't comfortable with those two or prefer a mouse based approach without th

If you're happy with emacs or vim then you probably shouldn't use it. Many people aren't comfortable with those two or prefer a mouse based approach without the overhead of an IDE in which case Sublime is a pretty good choice with lots of customizability and available plugins. Edit: For me I do my coding/most everything in vim but if I get a new project I have to learn about I find it much more easy to navigate an unknown project in Sublime while I get it sorted in my mind.

et1337 12y ago
Sublime's vim keybindings are fairly complete as well.
catern 12y ago
You can use Emacs with a mouse just fine out of the box if you want.
unfamiliar 12y ago
I really disagree with the characterisation that it is for people who "prefer a mouse based approach." I hardly ever touch the mouse while using it. For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, command pallete, sidebar, context menus, are all technically possible in vim, but hacking these features into a command line interface always ends up seeming clunky, confusing and slow. This also helps discoverability of features. If I want to do something, 99% of the time I can just search for the command in the menu or in the command pallete. Then they keyboard shortcut is clearly visible, and if it is a feature that I expect to use often I will make note of it. In vim (for me at least) this would require searching online for how to do something plus 10 minutes memorising the obscure commands to type into the command line. Compared to IDE's, sublime has most of their features that I use on a regular basis, but is comparatively light to use. I'd much rather pop open sublime to quickly edit a file than launch eclipse.
- sjolsen 12y ago
  >For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, command pallete, sidebar, context menus, are all technically possible in vim, but hacking these features into a command line interface always ends up seeming clunky, confusing and slow. I can't speak for vim, but Emacs is also a "full gui app." It has go to definition (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was invented in some incarnation of Emacs), autocompletion, and various other such features like gdb integration and build message hyperlinking. The discoverability argument applies as well.
  - kasabali 12y ago
    I disagree, Emacs isn't a "full gui app" even if it has a gui with menus and can show images etc.; because almost all kind of interaction happens inside buffers opened in (new) windows. there are no proper dialogs/popups (they're not used even if it's possible), so Emacs is not a proper GUI app as anyone would expect. I don't claim it's a good or bad thing, a lot of people love emacs because of it's buffer/window centric approach, but it's not even remotely close to what you would expect from a modern gui, so Emacs is still oddball when compared to all the other gui's, which is why new users still struggle with it even though on paper Emacs has all the features other gui editors have.
    - sjolsen 12y ago
      So all in context, it sounds to me like you're saying that what sets Sublime Text apart from Emacs is simply that it uses a familiar user interface. I suppose that's fair enough. What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to.
      - kasabali 12y ago
        > What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to. I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here. Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.

et1337 12y ago

Sublime's vim keybindings are fairly complete as well.

catern 12y ago

You can use Emacs with a mouse just fine out of the box if you want.

unfamiliar 12y ago

I really disagree with the characterisation that it is for people who "prefer a mouse based approach." I hardly ever touch the mouse while using it. For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, command pallete, sidebar, context menus, are all technically possible in vim, but hacking these features into a command line interface always ends up seeming clunky, confusing and slow. This also helps discoverability of features. If I want to do something, 99% of the time I can just search for the command in the menu or in the command pallete. Then they keyboard shortcut is clearly visible, and if it is a feature that I expect to use often I will make note of it. In vim (for me at least) this would require searching online for how to do something plus 10 minutes memorising the obscure commands to type into the command line. Compared to IDE's, sublime has most of their features that I use on a regular basis, but is comparatively light to use. I'd much rather pop open sublime to quickly edit a file than launch eclipse.

sjolsen 12y ago
>For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, command pallete, sidebar, context menus, are all technically possible in vim, but hacking these features into a command line interface always ends up seeming clunky, confusing and slow. I can't speak for vim, but Emacs is also a "full gui app." It has go to definition (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was invented in some incarnation of Emacs), autocompletion, and various other such features like gdb integration and build message hyperlinking. The discoverability argument applies as well.
- kasabali 12y ago
  I disagree, Emacs isn't a "full gui app" even if it has a gui with menus and can show images etc.; because almost all kind of interaction happens inside buffers opened in (new) windows. there are no proper dialogs/popups (they're not used even if it's possible), so Emacs is not a proper GUI app as anyone would expect. I don't claim it's a good or bad thing, a lot of people love emacs because of it's buffer/window centric approach, but it's not even remotely close to what you would expect from a modern gui, so Emacs is still oddball when compared to all the other gui's, which is why new users still struggle with it even though on paper Emacs has all the features other gui editors have.
  - sjolsen 12y ago
    So all in context, it sounds to me like you're saying that what sets Sublime Text apart from Emacs is simply that it uses a familiar user interface. I suppose that's fair enough. What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to.
    - kasabali 12y ago
      > What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to. I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here. Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.