On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:16:45AM +0900, Giles B. wrote:
Then again, I doubt I’d be able to tear myself away from Vim long enough
to give it a fair shake.I did. There are definitely places where vi wins, but TextMate’s
pretty awesome. It’s my default editor these days.
I’d have to see it to believe it – and for that to happen, it’d
probably have to become available on free unices rather than just
proprietary operating systems.
Gavin K. wrote:
How many files are in your project? How big are all those files
(aggregate)? What machine is this running on? How much physical RAM do
you have? How many other applications are you running? How much free
disk space do you have?Not trying to be defensive, curious for the benchmark data point.
I’m glad you asked. No, I mean I’m REALLY glad you asked. I’m
embarrassed to admit this, but in the course of answering your question,
I discovered that my project’s log files had crept up to about 210 MB
since the last time I cleared them.
After clearing those out (and bringing the size of the project as a
whole down to 7.6 MB), Find in Project runs in about a second. Whoops!
Wait, what? It takes a long time to scan through a million lines of log
files? Who would have thought? 
So um yeah I hereby rescind my previous comment.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:58:19PM +0900, JB Wells wrote:
Er…you mean to Linux, right :-). When it gets to Linux, I’ll give it a go.
Actually, I’d like to see it on FreeBSD first for two reasons:
If it shows up on FreeBSD first, it’ll make its way to Linux
shortly. If it shows up on Linux first, it may never appear on
FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is better.
Err, no really, I’m not trolling. I just found that for my purposes
FreeBSD is better – after several years of being a devoted Debian fan.
YMMV.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 02:01:08AM +0900, JB Wells wrote:
----- “William S.” [email protected] wrote:
Check it out.
Btw, for Linux, has anyone tried Scribes? (http://scribes.sf.net)
In this month’s Linux journal, they mention it as an editor for Linux very similar to textmate. I don’t use textmate (not enough to make me leave Linux behind), so can’t speak to how similar it actually is. Can anyone on the list?
I can’t answer your question, since I haven’t used TextMate either, but
Scribes is available in FreeBSD’s ports tree. If it wasn’t for the
dependency on GNOME libraries, I’d be installing it right now.
C’est la vie.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007, Chris G. wrote:
I discovered that my project’s log files had crept up to about 210 MB
since the last time I cleared them.
I’m glad this turned out to be the case. I used to think TM was slow
too until I figured out this exact problem.
After clearing those out (and bringing the size of the project as a
whole down to 7.6 MB), Find in Project runs in about a second. Whoops!
Awesome.
Ben
Chad P. wrote:
Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
especially since Qt generally means “plus thirty KDE libraries”.
. o 0 (Huh?)
KDE depends on Qt. This is ostensibly not the case the other way around,
Qt being a separate product predating KDE by five years. It is
alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
(Were I feeling risky, I’d tell you to get your facts right before
trolling.)
David V.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:30:06AM +0900, Jonas H. wrote:
to give it a fair shake.
i wonder, with all the fame it got, why the textmate guys dont recode
it based on QT4 and add skinning and make it feel native like it is on
os x. its slow now and i cant imagen it getting so much slower ;p but
its a great and very productive tool.
Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
especially since Qt generally means “plus thirty KDE libraries”.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:04AM +0900, David V. wrote:
using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
The “ostensibly” bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it’s
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable – especially since I haven’t seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt “generall means”, not “always
means”.
(Were I feeling risky, I’d tell you to get your facts right before
trolling.)
Good thing you weren’t feeling that way, then.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:47:33AM +0900, Chad P. wrote:
using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
The “ostensibly” bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it’s
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable – especially since I haven’t seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt “generall means”, not “always
means”.
I’ve written several Qt apps and never used a KDE library. Many
commercial
products (e.g. Opera) are written with Qt alone and no KDE. I don’t
think there would be any significant value in the KDE libraries for
implementing Textmate on Qt (unless they wanted to make it embeddable as
a
KPart, which would be cool but probably not worth the trouble or KDE
dependency).
(Were I feeling risky, I’d tell you to get your facts right before
trolling.)Good thing you weren’t feeling that way, then.
I’m tempted, but I’ll resist. While the majority of open source apps
that
use Qt do so through KDE, the same is not true for commercial apps. Your
statement that “Qt generally means ‘plus thirty KDE libraries’” is, at
best, only applicable to open source Qt apps, which makes it irrelevant
to
the discussion of Textmate. At worst it is actual trolling.
–Greg
Chad P. wrote:
The “ostensibly” bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it’s
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable – especially since I haven’t seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt “generall means”, not “always
means”.
Skype. Opera (the Linux version definitely, not sure about the Windows
one). Perforce. This makes it roughly a +INF times more apps that I
regularly use over those that only use Gtk. (Which has still noticeable
visual warts on Windowsen, so I’m biased.)
(Those three were off the top of my head, by the way.)
And especially if TextMate were to be rewritten in Qt4, using KDE
instead of Qt4 would mean dropping some native fidelity on the
originating system. Given how Mac people dote on their UI, in the highly
unlikely event that such a rewrite were to happen, I believe the
dev-team wouldn’t choose to use KDE. (More so because the suggested
motivation for such a rewrite would be higher portability, and a KDE
dependency would exclude Windows, increasing the potential market much
less.)
David V.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:22:32AM +0900, Gregory S. wrote:
alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
products (e.g. Opera) are written with Qt alone and no KDE. I don’t
think there would be any significant value in the KDE libraries for
implementing Textmate on Qt (unless they wanted to make it embeddable as a
KPart, which would be cool but probably not worth the trouble or KDE
dependency).
You’re in a minority, then, in my experience. Also . . . since I don’t
use much proprietary software, and you apparently do, your experience is
likely to differ from mine.
the discussion of Textmate. At worst it is actual trolling.
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate, I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
Considering that you’re so quick to leap to judgment about trolling, you
sound a bit like a troll yourself.
Chad P. wrote:
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate.
Actually, that’s how I did in fact read Jonas H.'s wishful
thinking.
E-TextEditor is not a port, but it’s not even a Windows “version” of
TextMate for any possible interpretation of the word. It’s a completely
distinct product that just happens to have support of TextMate bundles
(whatevertheheck those are) as one of its features (which strikes me as
an odd, but apparently effective marketing move), and maybe shares some
design aims. This product is not relevant to this discussion.
I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
Actually, since the benefit a commercial software company would want to
gain from such a massive body of work would be getting more customers /
sales, a set of dependencies that’s more portable and less likely to
alienate users (because of the desktop wars) would indeed make sense.
But that’s already going into the realm of setting up pretty straw men.
David V.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:32:09AM +0900, David V. wrote:
regularly use over those that only use Gtk. (Which has still noticeable
visual warts on Windowsen, so I’m biased.)
Keep in mind I speak from the perspective of someone who very rarely
uses Windows, and even more rarely uses proprietary apps on Linux or
FreeBSD. I’ve never used Skype, I haven’t even seen Opera running on
someone else’s machine in the last year or two, and Perforce is so far
outside the realm of my day-to-day use that it took me a moment to
remember what it is. (SCM stuff, I think.)
I probably should have been more clear about the fact that I’m speaking
from the perspective of an open source software user. I guess I just
assumed it would be understood, since I’m talking about availability of
something TextMate-ish on FreeBSD and/or Linux.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:26:09AM +0900, Chad P. wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:22:32AM +0900, Gregory S. wrote:
[…]
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
No one was talking about a clone. The discussion was about the Textmate
guys themselves porting to Qt4 to make it cross-platform, and that’s why
I’m taking issue with your post. We’re specifically talking about a
proprietary application (well, two of them if you count the Windows
clone).
You brought up KDE, which is almost exclusively used by open source
applications. It’s completely irrelevant.
Considering that you’re so quick to leap to judgment about trolling, you
sound a bit like a troll yourself.
Ad hominem. Ignored.
CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
–Greg
Chad P. wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:32:09AM +0900, David V. wrote:
Chad P. wrote:
The “ostensibly” bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it’s
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable – especially since I haven’t seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries.
I probably should have been more clear about the fact that I’m speaking
from the perspective of an open source software user.
From which the only thing that follows is that your perspective is
intentionally narrow. Since the vast of open-source development happens
on OSS Unixen, where a KDE dependency is not a limiting factor to any
commercial end, it would make sense that someone making a GUI app on the
Qt side would use the extra rope that KDE would give him for his own
convenience or to get more functionality for his time.
However, TextMate is not a non-profit open-source volunteer project.
Trying to suggest what decisions they’d make while speaking
demonstratively from a perspective that is, as you yourself admit, very
much not the perspective of the TextMate developers strikes me as odd in
the very least.
David V.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:45:04AM +0900, David V. wrote:
an odd, but apparently effective marketing move), and maybe shares some
design aims. This product is not relevant to this discussion.
This product is what started this discussion. That seems relevant to
me. The slogan for E-TextEditor is also suspicious, as an indicator
that it’s a close approximation of TextMate:
E - TextEditor | The power of TextMate on Windows
Yeah, sounds relevant to me.
I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.Actually, since the benefit a commercial software company would want to
gain from such a massive body of work would be getting more customers /
sales, a set of dependencies that’s more portable and less likely to
alienate users (because of the desktop wars) would indeed make sense.
But that’s already going into the realm of setting up pretty straw men.
Since there’s already something TextMate-ish on Windows, and TextMate
itself is on MacOS X, all that’s left is Linux and BSD for the three
most popular platform niches for text editors. Since the people on this
list are probably more interested in the functionality of TextMate than
they are in the commercial success of the proprietary code of TextMate,
it seems to me we should be talking about if/when similar software will
be available rather than if/when TextMate itself will be more
cross-platform compatible.
Why would I care, one way or the other, whether the creator of TextMate
provides a clone or port for free unices? All I’d really care about is
whether such a thing becomes readily available. I’ll stick to
discussing how someone might replicate the functionality and beneficial
interface characteristics on my platform of choice, rather than whether
or not person X will make any money off it.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:45:57AM +0900, Gregory S. wrote:
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate, I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.No one was talking about a clone. The discussion was about the Textmate
guys themselves porting to Qt4 to make it cross-platform, and that’s why
I’m taking issue with your post. We’re specifically talking about a
proprietary application (well, two of them if you count the Windows clone).
You brought up KDE, which is almost exclusively used by open source
applications. It’s completely irrelevant.
So . . . you’d only use it if it was created by the same guy? Are you
more interested in who owns the copyright than whether or not the
software provides the functionality you need?
Considering that you’re so quick to leap to judgment about trolling, you
sound a bit like a troll yourself.Ad hominem. Ignored.
That’s really funny, considering the accusation to which that was a
reply.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:51:14AM +0900, David V. wrote:
much not the perspective of the TextMate developers strikes me as odd in
the very least.
Trying to ignore the rest of what I said about who’s writing what
software is getting tiring. I got involved in this discussion because
I’d like to see what all the fuss is about, regarding the functionality
and interface characteristics of TextMate – not because I think
TextMate can make a bunch of money through a free unix port. See
previous messages for context or cease replying to me on this subject,
please.
I’m just wondering whether E is shipping with a bunch of Textmate
bundles
taken without permission from the actual Textmate app. Anyone know?
I believe the developer contacted and talked with TM’s developer a
while back as he blogged about it. I downloaded it 6? months ago and
found it to be useless, buggy crap… and for something that he was
offering (still is) as a 30-day trial/$40 to buy beta (pre alpha)
version. Actually it kinda ticked me off the way he talked it up and
got (what seemed to me at the time) some good buzz about his editor
that he squandered by not having something that was ready for release
(as i said really buggy)
–
Craig B.
AIM: kreiggers
TextMate is a commercial product for the Mac, that is a legitimate
choice made by his author.
If you think some sort of clone would be good in a different
platform, GUI toolkit, whatever, go launch an open source project and
start programming, good luck.
Please stop this thread.
– fxn
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs