[DFx]

I have to wonder if this is solving a problem that doesn't really exist. So Sublime Text is closed source and production has slowed down... one could argue the latter happens when any big project blows-up to mainstream.

We have TextMate, we have SublimeText we have an endless supply of code editors and IDEs...do we need another just because of "open source"? I can't help this feels like a wasted effort.

Also, after going through the checklist, the app is supposed to support SublimeText and Textmate snippets, colors, bundles, bindings and more. Seems like the dev might have been better off contributing to these projects rather than trying to push yet another code-editor into an already crowded market.

</2Cents>

[quarnster]

I don't care about what you need or don't need, maybe I enjoy writing code for the sake of writing code. Implementing the rope structure for example was fun, as was figuring out how to go about with the various ST3 compatibility tasks.

What I choose to do on my own spare time is none of your business no matter how much of a waste of time you think it is.

[DFx]

It wasn't my intent to raise a defensive argument from you as I was simply stating my opinion. I know this is your pet project, and you're defensive... but people will have differing opinions and you should get used to dealing with them.

My point (which was perhaps missed?) was that I personally just don't see the value in bringing another text editor into the world especially when you're focused on imitating and supporting others rather than innovating with your own way. If you had created an editor with a new way of doing things, or pushed past existing concepts I wouldn't have thought twice about its value, but all the feature checklist is pretty much "Make this TextMate and Sublime in one" without any real game-changing plans being mentioned.

As to your point about learning new things through projects and enjoying code I don't disagree. My point was simply that you chose to invest your time in an already crowded market and simply reinvented functionality that already existed. I can respect the work, effort and learning that went into the project, I was just musing that it may have been better invested in a project that is a bit more unique and doesn't just reiterate what has already been achieved. That's also why I ended it with </2cents> it was an opinion...

[Touche]

Sounds like you really don't get the value of open source.

> If you had created an editor with a new way of doing things, or pushed past existing concepts I wouldn't have thought twice about its value, but all the feature checklist is pretty much "Make this TextMate and Sublime in one" without any real game-changing plans being mentioned.

That's the entire point; he/she wants to add features to Sublime but can't do so because it's closed source. He/she has to get to parity with Sublime before starting to add stuff, no?

[DFx]

I do see your point that parity much be reached first, and do personally appreciate the open source model for a number of reasons.

Perhaps my viewpoint stems from the description of the project. The entire opening section talks about how Sublime Text has become slower and less communicative about releases. There's nothing mentioning surpassing the app, missing functionality, or items the developer wants to change. Simply that it's not moving fast enough for the developer of Lime to appreciate, so another must be built.

If there had been a specific statement saying "I want to implement X and Sublime doesn't" or "I want to have an editor do Z and none of the others do" then yes, I would see value in a project that starts off by imitating others. As it stands though, the project describes itself like a recreation of what's already out there without mentioning any intent to build on it.

This strikes me as the typical developer time-sink "I'll build this because I can". Sure it can be fun and educational and maybe help out a handful of people...but the real question that should be asked is "what sets my project apart from the rest". In this case, there's no sign of it aside from using GO and making it open source.

[nsmartt]

> I personally just don't see the value in bringing another text editor into the world

This isn't really a valid POV. There are many reasons to introduce solutions to problems with existing solutions. Is there any compelling reason not to open-source those solutions? Why does it matter whether there are competitors?

[JetSetWilly]

I don't see how it is a crowded market. Apparently Sublime Text is good enough to make a living as a paid-for, closed source piece of software, in spite of the existence of tons of high quality open source editors like emacs and vim. That alone suggests that commoditising it as an open source product would indeed add value.

And if the sublime text author had followed your argument, Sublime Text would not have existed. "Textmate already exists, and so do excellent open source editors. Why bother cloning textmate on windows?"

I for one would be very interested in an open source Sublime Text clone.

[quarnster]

It's not a pet project, I haven't written any real code for it for about 6 months.

My point (which perhaps you missed?) is that you don't get to tell me what I choose to spend my time on.