4 ms·
No, it still fares very poorly when matched up against ST3 (or Textmate 2, or basically any high-quality native editor). It is slow slow slow, and has lots of l
by veidr 11y ago
No, it still fares very poorly when matched up against ST3 (or Textmate 2, or basically any high-quality native editor). It is slow slow slow, and has lots of little quirks which are clearly a result of the wacky way they decided to build a text editor.
BUT.... it is way, way better than it used to be. I keep it installed and use it from time to time, to let it update itself and see how it has grown.
It clearly has momentum, and computers clearly are getting faster... probably one day the slowness of it won't matter. But it still matters today -- Atom is noticeably slow on the fastest Mac notebook you can currently buy.
- MozMorris 11y agoSorry be that guy who posts his specs and disagrees... :-) Running on a stock mid-2011 Air w/ 4GB Ram plus a Thunderbolt display. If it was slow, I would have switched or upgraded my machine sometime ago. Things that are slow to me are waiting for node-sass to compile on save, server-side code reloading, npm installing... and so on.
- lvillani 11y agoIt highly depends on your usage pattern. I usually have one long-lived instance of an editor for the project/thing I'm focusing on, but I also frequently fire up "temporary" instances for one-off editing jobs, from the terminal. The difference between, let's say, "subl ." (launch Sublime Text in the current directory) and "atom ." is staggering: Sublime Text starts instantly with a boatload of plugins; Atom starts nearly instantaneously but then takes around 5 seconds to become usable, without plugins, after repeated runs. (Speaking of specs, I'm on a late 2013 Retina MacBook Pro, 16 GB of RAM)