[heretohelp]

I'm more deeply concerned about the fact that Emacs is something which, roughly speaking, I can control. Emacs is a community project. Your project appears to be commercial in nature, regardless of whether or not it's open source. Your project will also be a dictatorship by dint of the fact that it belongs to you.

Why should I trust you to provide the most fundamental tool in my work?

[ibdknox]

It will probably be under the GPL just like Emacs, so I'm not sure I understand the concern?

[Arelius]

I think the fear is in the "probably". YCombinator, for instance, doesn't have a good record of doing things just for the community good, they are after all profit seeking.

That's not to say it won't happen, but the fear is there.

[Estragon]

What kind of business strategies would be compatible with that?

[heretohelp]

I'm fine with profit-seeking, but GNU projects like Emacs tend to be too fundamental to allow a proprietary solution to predominate. (Cf. gcc)

I'm fine paying for servers, for contractors, services, random productivity-ware like Pivotal Tracker etc. but I'm never going to be okay with subjecting my development environment, something I've honed for years and years, to fee extraction or proprietary control by a commercial entity.

[Jach]

He doesn't have to cater to you or me and I think it would be a mistake to do so. Visual Studio is very popular... When Light Table comes out, at the end of the day I'll still be using vim and I suspect most emacs users will still be using emacs. We're not the target audience. I disagree that Light Table needs to be anything like emacs to dominate, it can even have a proprietary license, it can skip over us just as Eclipse, VS, et al. have done. That's fine. I'd rather that be the case and see a pretty end-product that serves its original goals well (and I may even try it for fun if it's free) than having a half-baked "vim-mode" stuck on at the end just to try and attract me.

[Arelius]

Visual Studio is a unique case in that it had the giant of Microsoft and their windows platform behind it, and IIRC, at the time no opensource free alternatives. I'm not sure in a modern world, Light Table advantages would afford it the same spread.

[heretohelp]

>He doesn't have to cater to you or me

You're right.

>I think it would be a mistake to do so.

Maybe.

>Visual Studio is very popular... When Light Table comes out

Does not follow. Visual Studio users will NOT be using Light Table even if they're aware of its existence (and they won't be, save for the few poor bastards working in Microsoft-land and reading HN).

Light Table, in terms of addressable market, is really only talking to grumpy hackers like me and startup people. Maybe particularly keen hobbyists who are good at following the state of the art.

> We're not the target audience.

Then why is his open source community (Clojure) and people he's reached mostly involve exactly our target audience?

>I'd rather that be the case and see a pretty end-product that serves its original goals well (and I may even try it for fun if it's free) than having a half-baked "vim-mode" stuck on at the end just to try and attract me.

That is...not what I was talking about. Did you even read what I said?

I was talking about freedom, not bolting it onto an existing editor. The point is that I don't want to Monsanto-ify my tools and be dependent on an unaccountable commercial entity for how I work.