Why no TextMate for Linux?
in [Ruby]
|
From: sl4m on 11 Mar 2010 02:17 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] While I have not tried, the linux version of e-texteditor (originally only for Windows) is free and available here: http://wiki.github.com/etexteditor/e/. It takes advantage of TextMate's bundles and is one of the editors I use on Windows. You just have to build it. "The editor could not have been build[sic] without the support of a lot of open source projects (most notably wxWidgets <http://wxwidgets.org/>). So to give back, the Linux version will be totally free (as in beer)." http://e-texteditor.com/blog/2009/releasing-the-source On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 20:55, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-03-11, David Masover <ninja(a)slaphack.com> wrote: > > I'm much more interested in it on a personal level. Switching text > editors at > > this point might be, for most of us, far trickier than switching OSes, > and > > could be almost as bad as switching keyboard layouts. (Dvorak, anyone?) > By > > picking a proprietary technology, you're doing several things that I > can't > > really see being worth the risk: > > Just as a data point, I still use vi as my primary editor (nvi by > preference, > I dislike vim). And yet... I have TextMate, and BBEdit, both, on my Mac. > > > * You're locked-in to a single provider -- in this case, a single > _person_. > > - If Allan Odgaard doesn't want to implement a feature you want, > you're > > SOL. > > - If Allan Odgaard can't fix a bug that's annoying you, you're also > SOL. > > - if Allan Odgaard wants money for a new car, you might find the next > > version of TextMate costs significantly more. > > Sure. > > But if the CURRENT version meets my needs, great! > > It's not as if most people can realistically get a real feature change > into vi. Even most programmers would be unlikely to find it worth the > time and effort. > > > * You're tied to an OS which is notorious for breaking backwards- > > compatibility. > > lolwut? I have things from OS X 10.0, written for PowerPC systems, which > still run on Intel in 10.6. > > I'm not seeing a real issue here. > > > - The next version of OS X is as likely as not to break the current > version > > of TextMate. > > You have any evidence for this? I've been using OS X as one of my desktop > platforms for about a decade now, and thus far, I've had VERY few programs > broken by upgrades -- and those were always things which I would have > expected > to break, like low-level hacks into the window manager or something > similar. > > > - Once you do upgrade, the new version of TextMate is as likely as not > to > > refuse to work on old versions of OS X, so you'd better upgrade all your > boxes > > at once. > > Again, this claim "as likely as not" seems pretty implausible to me. It's > extremely unusual for anyone to make a tool like this not work on at least > the > two or three most recent revisions. > > Do you have any kind of data to back this claim up, or is this just generic > FUD? If we're gonna be doing FUD, how about I warn people that they > shouldn't > be relying on Ruby, because a new version of Ruby might break existing > scripts? > > Oh, wait. That actually *happens*, so we don't worry about it. > > > - If you don't like the new OS X, for whatever reason, some new > version of > > TextMate might force you to upgrade anyway. > > But you don't have to get a new version, if the one you have works. > > > - Switching OSes -- to Linux, to Windows, to Plan9, to whatever -- is > out > > of the question for you. > > I would consider that pretty normal for a lot of tools. I expect to have > to switch tools when I switch OS's. There are exceptions, but by and > large, > the default I expect is that any given program will probably be specific > to a target platform. > > > * You're a programmer, yet you can't program your own programming tools. > > - I don't care how extensible it is, you don't have the source. > > - Look at the tricks tools like Diakonos can do. Can TextMate do that? > > - Basically, TextMate may be at the top of the heap now (though > there's > > certainly room for debate), but if it continues to innovate, you can't be > a > > part of that. I would hope tools like Diakonos would win out in the long > run, > > because people who use them would inevitably contribute needed changes -- > if > > there was ever a "scratch your own itch" app, a text editor is it. > > I have never found myself with any complaints about the available options, > preferences, or features in either BBEdit or TextMate. I use vi because I > like the raw speed, and don't need the flashy stuff, but I've never found > myself wishing to extend either of them. > > > * Again, a SINGLE PERSON is responsible for the destiny of this editor. > > - If Allan should be hit by a bus (not that I am wishing this on > anyone), > > what happens to TextMate development? > > Presumably it goes to the estate. I dunno. I don't see this as a big > deal. > Again, if the current version works for me, I don't care about future > versions > for a long time. > > > Still, think about it. Would you choose a proprietary programming > language? > > If it was the right tool for the job, yes. > > > Library? > > If it was the right tool for the job, yes. > > > Framework? > > If it was the right tool for the job, yes. > > I'm making myself an iPhone app. I dunno if I'll ever even get it to the > point where I'd submit it to the app store. I want it for my own use. It > is heavily tied to several proprietary frameworks. > > So what? Nothing else lets me do what I want. So I'll use Objective-C > (not > technically proprietary, but functionally so), a number of proprietary > libraries, several proprietary frameworks, and a series of proprietary > development tools. Because they let me do what I want. > > > If not, why not, and why would you use a proprietary text > > editor, or debugger, or _any_ proprietary programming tool? > > I would use them because they had features I wanted or needed which > justified > their cost. If I were doing something that was targeting Intel chips, and > I needed the best possible performance, you BET it'd be using the Intel > proprietary compiler. If I were targeting Cell, and I needed the best > possible performance, you BET it'd be using the IBM compilers. If I had a > short deadline for debugging something, and a proprietary tool had a > feature > that would let me debug it, yes, I'd use a proprietary tool. Purify does > stuff that most other allocation checkers I've tried didn't. If I > desperately > needed to fix an allocation bug, I might well tell management "get me a > license for Purify or move your schedule". (Well, probably not, since I'm > pretty good at those anyway...) > > I don't have a problem with proprietary tools, IF they do their job well > enough to justify the hassles. > > > I generally don't bother people about developing on OS X. It's annoying, > but > > most of the Ruby stuff is going to be general Unix stuff anyway, not Mac- > > specific. But then, switching OSes is easy when your tools are portable. > > It is usually a bit of a tradeoff. I'll accept some non-portability of > tools > to get jobs done sooner and with less effort. > > I am a moderately experienced Unix geek, but the shared disk used by the > various computers in my house is attached to a box running OS X Server, > because the cost of my time to set all that stuff up correctly is an > order of magnitude more than the cost to have something where I click the > "yes, make this available to Windows too" button. ...Which is gonna go > away now that the two people who had Windows machines have moved out. But > I'll still probably use OS X Server, because it does what I want and stays > out of my face. Good enough. > > -s > -- > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / > usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net > http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29><-- get educated! > >
From: Rimantas Liubertas on 11 Mar 2010 02:53 hey, I agree with the whole post of yours, but this is the key message: > But if the CURRENT version meets my needs, great! Fear of some bad thing to happen (and most of which are not very likely) should not stop you from using the tool you consider best for the job right now. And most of us a probably using several editors anyway, so switching to some alternative already familiair won't be that huge cost. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
From: Seebs on 11 Mar 2010 03:49 On 2010-03-11, Rimantas Liubertas <rimantas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> But if the CURRENT version meets my needs, great! > Fear of some bad thing to happen (and most of which are not very > likely) should not > stop you from using the tool you consider best for the job right now. In general, yes. The key thing there is that, no matter what happens to TextMate in the future, I can use the current version. Contrast with, say, the recent kerfluffle with Ubisoft introducing a "DRM" scheme whereby, if their servers go down, the program you ALREADY HAVE stops working. In that case, it's certainly quite reasonable to be concerned. The key thing to evaluate is what happens to you in the case where things go "poof". If the guy selling TextMate goes away tomorrow, I still have an editor that does a bunch of stuff pretty well and which I find basically friendly. I can live with that. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Diego Virasoro on 11 Mar 2010 07:46 > I'm much more interested in it on a personal level. Switching text editors at > this point might be, for most of us, far trickier than switching OSes, and > could be almost as bad as switching keyboard layouts. (Dvorak, anyone?) By > picking a proprietary technology, you're doing several things that I can't > really see being worth the risk: To be honest with you I find your arguments weak at best. At the end of the day the data it spits out (the files you work on) are simple text files. How you got there doesn't matter, and I don't see why it should. Yes, it may cost some retraining time to move to another text editor but so what: should I stop using it on the off chance that the developer takes it in a direction I don't like? Personally I didn't buy textmate for what will be added in 1 year, but for what it is now. And just like I moved to Textmate even though I wasted a few hours learning to be comfortable in it, so I will in the future if I have strong objections. Do you make your own car on the off chance that the car makers will make a car you won't like? Or maybe create your own mobile phone because you are worried that tomorrow Nokia et al. will produce phones you don't like? Everytime you move from one product to another you need to retrain yourself. Those of us who bought Textmate did it for what it is, and that will not change. And as any other complex product in life if the future Textmate will not be good enough, we will not buy it and get something else. Diego
From: Roger Pack on 12 Mar 2010 12:01
Steve Kim wrote: > While I have not tried, the linux version of e-texteditor (originally > only > for Windows) is free and available here: > http://wiki.github.com/etexteditor/e/. It is free but unless you register will give you a popup at startup time saying "your license has expired" (then allowing you to continue) :) The only open source textmate clone I'm aware of is Redcar. It just released a new version with snippets now :) http://redcareditor.com/2010/03/redcar-034dev-released/ -r -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. |