I've been trying out Light Table recently, and it seems to have no problems with large files (and generally feels much more snappy in use compared to Atom). I

I've been trying out Light Table recently, and it seems to have no problems with large files (and generally feels much more snappy in use compared to Atom). I just tried a bundled 3MB+ .js file and it loaded practically instantaneously. Even opening a 10MB+ .mp3 file (for science!) didn't result in any delay longer than a second. Whereas opening the same files on the latest Atom took a good 5 seconds for the .js and 10 seconds for the .mp3 (and it looks like Atom had to give up on doing syntax highlighting on the .js file, whereas Light Table did not). These tests were all performed on a rather modest Core M processor, so YMMV. AFAIK, both Atom and Light Table are built on Electron and web technologies (Light Table uses ClojureScript but at the end of the day they both compile down to HTML/JS/CSS). So my takeaway from this is: Atom's performance woes are most likely not intrinsic to the web-based platform it's built on, but are rather results of implementation flaws of Atom itself. http://lighttable.com/ http://lighttable.com/