Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TextMate 2 Released As Open Source

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the nice-move dept.

Open Source 193

First time accepted submitter DaBombDotCom writes "Allan Odgaard, the author of the popular text editor for Mac OS X, TextMate, has posted on his blog: 'Today I am happy to announce that you can find the source for TextMate 2 on GitHub. I've always wanted to allow end-users to tinker with their environment, my ability to do this is what got me excited about programming in the first place, and it is why I created the bundles concept, but there are limits to how much a bundle can do, and with the still growing user base, I think the best move forward is to open source the program. The choice of license is GPL 3. This is partly to avoid a closed source fork and partly because the hacker in me wants all software to be free (as in speech), so in a time where our platform vendor is taking steps to limit our freedom, this is my small attempt of countering such trend.'"

cancel ×

193 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good to see (0)

mholve (1101) | about 2 years ago | (#40937327)

BBEdit it's not, and it has been dying a slow death from its Textmate "1" days. Hopefully this will give it a much-needed shot in the arm.

Re:Good to see (1)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#40937421)

At least it displays properly on my retina screen, unlike the aforementioned BBEdit.

BBedit was my go-to editor years ago. And it still is for some things. Any kind of batch file operations for example, or transforming tab delimited notes I take into sql inserts.

But for actual coding, TextMate all the way.

Re:Good to see (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40937839)

I abandoned BBEdit years ago when it got big and slow. And it was always a little ugly. TextMate is much cleaner.

who? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937365)

--Vi

Emacs (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#40938579)

That's who.

It's about damn time (1)

47Ronin (39566) | about 2 years ago | (#40937389)

As someone who paid some shiny euros for v1 many many years ago and wondered if 2.0 was vaporware I'm kinda hopeful. At least now there's a chance this project will move forward. You'd think that after getting paid some BIG bucks for this text editor —for years —Allan would have the resources and the motivation to keep this thing going. As open source, I can see this as a solid competitor to the GPL'd jEdit.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40937471)

When I bought v1 I never had v2 in mind. Over the years I've always wondered what the fuss was about. Search is a bit tedious/slow, but it remains a great editor. I'd be very happy if Xcode was half as good in some respects.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

mehemiah (971799) | about 2 years ago | (#40937517)

I love your sig. Also, even this dev is noticing a trend with BSD licensed projects.

Re:It's about damn time (0)

jockm (233372) | about 2 years ago | (#40937627)

Big bucks? Textmate is $50, that is cheap, especially for software that you rely on. Visual SlickEdit is $300 a seat, Multi-Edit costs about the same, Kedit is "just" $130, and Vedit is the most reasonable of that lot at $90 These along with Brief (about $200 IIRC) were the workhorses of professional development 15-20 years ago.

Texmate is an editor to rival most on that list (thought it lacks a couple of features I would love to see, and isn't great with huge files), is very reasonably priced, especially considering that it has gotten you free updates for years.

Re:It's about damn time (5, Insightful)

Cormacus (976625) | about 2 years ago | (#40937751)

Vim is free. Just throwing that out there.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40937959)

Vim is an editor from a different time frame. I prefered that to emacs because I memorized the keystrokes and offered great Windows support a decade ago. Nowdays people tend to prefer ide's or editors like Notepad++ which is what I use on Windows an aptana and dreamweaver for more details things. It is bizaare though to go into edit mode and out of it in 2012. Same is true with emacs today. I suppose if you out of habbit been doing it for 15 years you would go crazy doing it any other way I suppose.

What does Textmate have that other editors don't? I know its popular on MacOSX? I wonder I should leave notepad++ if it is ported to win64?

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938293)

Yeah, I've always bemoaned the lack of choices for text editors in Debian, or Linux/Unix in general for that matter. I don't see how anyone has been able to write any software for the last 30-40 years.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#40938423)

They use Vim and Emacs of course. Some may use IDEs like Eclipse depending on their choice of programming language, etc. There are easier to use graphical text editors like gedit or kate or even the old NEdit if you want to use those. A lack of text editors in an operating system made by programmers for programmers? Surely you jest.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

jguevin (453329) | about 2 years ago | (#40938481)

Surely you jest.

Yeah, he does.

Re:It's about damn time (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40938575)

He was being sarcastic I am sure. I understand how people's brains get hardwired to reflexes and habits and resist change which is what caused the vi vs emacs wars in the Unix community a decade ago. But to start anew imitating the different mode from 1970s teletypes with only 300 broad connections in 2012 is strange which is why vim has editing modes. But ide's and other tools have things like debuggers and other tools you can use integrated in, in a more modern sense. Of course emacs users claim they have that. But it is a bunch of macros in lisp to cli tools like gnu db. Surprisingly I found out that vi has some tools too like make and even cc if I remember properly. Shockingly I found out you can even do a :cl projectx in win32 and it will use visual c++ clink utility to compile.

Textmate is a more modern text editor and borderline ide that has nice add on features for the mac.

Re:It's about damn time (5, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#40938809)

FWIW the first time I used Vim (or Emacs for that matter) I found them to have needlessly cumbersome interfaces. The only Vim and Emacs commands I memorized were how to exit the editor (:q!, ^X^C) in case I got into either by mistake. I was used to programming with Cygnus Ed on the Amiga. After using a lot of simpler text editors like Joe or Nano in the console or NEdit in X for over a decade I eventually decided I had to learn either Vim or Emacs. Vim actually seemed to fit my style better since it started up more quickly and was nearly ubiquitous. I learned Vim by forcing myself to use it for writing a simple application in a weekend. While it takes some effort to learn the keyboard commands once you do learn them it is much more efficient to use than any other editor unless you are using one of those languages where you need to generate a lot of boilerplate code like Java in which case you are better off with an IDE like Eclipse or Netbeans if you have them around.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#40939391)

But to start anew imitating the different mode from 1970s teletypes with only 300 broad connections

300 baud

in 2012 is strange which is why vim has editing modes.

Connection speed has nothing to do with this. The original vi has insert and editing modes because it has to be usable on a terminal with any keyboard layout, and to allow one-keystroke switch between command and editing modes.

But ide's and other tools have things like debuggers and other tools you can use integrated in, in a more modern sense. Of course emacs users claim they have that.

Developers must keep themselves as far from debugger as possible, and anything that makes running a debugger difficult, is an improvement as far as development environment is concerned.

But it is a bunch of macros in lisp to cli tools like gnu db.

It's called "modularity".

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939659)

Care to explain why developers should be as far away from a debugger as possible?

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939093)

Yeah, writing the linux kernel using command-line stream editor 'ed' must have been a tortuous affair. [ /sarcasm ]

Re:It's about damn time (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 2 years ago | (#40939285)

They used ed? I thought real programmers used cat.

Re:It's about damn time (0)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#40937771)

When I moved to a Mac last year, one thing that was missing was a good text editor. I looked at the options and decided that gedit (there is a Mac port of this Linux program) was better than any of the native Mac programs... FOSS also!

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939657)

You looked and the best you could come up with is gedit? Really?

TextWrangler, SublimeText, Aquamacs and MacVim are all better options. And that's before you even get to things that you're forced to pay for.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

BadgerRush (2648589) | about 2 years ago | (#40937967)

If $50 is cheap for you, good for you. But don't forget that for the majority of people in the world, $50 is BIG bucks.

Re:It's about damn time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938021)

The majority of people in the world do not own a Mac...

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40938673)

How did this troll get modded insightful?

The majority of people in the world don't code for a living...

FTFY...

Re:It's about damn time (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#40939461)

I'd be surprised if the majority of people in the world owned any sort of personal computer.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 2 years ago | (#40938317)

For what it does, and does quite well, $50 is indeed cheap. It does have its quirks, but as a primarily Win/Linux guy, I find Textmate quite tolerable, unlike the vast majority of other Mac apps I've tried.

Sure, we PC freaks are spoiled with a gazillion free Scintilla-based editors, but that freeware culture is nowhere near as strong on the Mac. $50 is peanuts compared to the time and frustration saved (read: more hours billed). You have to put it into perspective, I don't know many Mac users who code "just for fun"; it's a work tool.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40938905)

>>>Textmate is $50, that is cheap, especially for software that you rely on. Visual SlickEdit is $300 a seat, Multi-Edit costs about the same, Kedit is "just" $130, and Vedit is the most reasonable of that lot at $90

I wouldn't buy any of them.
I'd ask my employer to give me the tool I need free-of-charge, or else just use a freebie tool like Notepad, jEdit, LibreOffice, etc. I try to spend as little money as possible.

Re:It's about damn time (1, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40937663)

First thing that needs to happen is lose that platform-specific code. It's not going to get terribly far if it will only run in OS X, when it's competitors will run pretty much anywhere. It's a text editor.

Re:It's about damn time (4, Insightful)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#40937763)

Oh hell no!

Mac users as a bunch tend to loathe GUI-critical software that "runs anywhere" (like anything Java, Air, and nix apps running under X11). This is also one of the things that makes TextMate specifically so great. It integrates with your Mac environment so seamlessly, it renders text fantastically, it uses UI conventions that you are accustomed to from native apps... etc, etc, etc, the list goes on.

If you want something like TextMate on a different platform, go ahead and bake your own. But don't try to suggest that not being able to run TextMate elsewhere is some kind of flaw.

Re:It's about damn time (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937915)

You can have both, as Sublime Text has proved — cross platform, and yet feels great on a Mac.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#40938105)

I'm skeptical Sublime is any more platform independent than say, Google Chrome, MS Office, or Adobe Photoshop.*

Yes, there are versions of each designed for each platform, but this is not the same as tossing out platform-specific code in favor of platform independence. I.e., I have no qualms with someone porting TextEdit to other platforms, but the OP seemed to be suggesting literally making TextMate platform independent (like much other OSS out there).

---
* If Sublime truly 100% platform independent, wow... that's some insane miracle. Because all my habitual keyboard editing maneuvers and shortcuts work as they would in a native app, as does drag and drop and integration with other apps (like sftp).

Re:It's about damn time (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40937875)

No, no, no. The run anywhere stuff all has the same Achilles heel - it has to use some kind of platform independent GUI toolkit. And those are slow, clunky, and can't use any of the nice OS features.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40938965)

And those are slow, clunky, and can't use any of the nice OS features.

That last bit might be true, but "slow, clunky" is a crock of shit.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40939081)

Clunky and slow certainly apply for GIMP on OS X. It's fine software on Windows and Linux, or was last I tried it on either anyway. But (assuming it hasn't changed in the past three years) how they came up with the idea that they should stick to Ctrl+[key] instead of Cmd+[key] on a Mac is still beyond me...

Re:It's about damn time (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#40938087)

If you look at the source, this is a program designed to compiled by XCode against the Cocoa libraries for use on a Mac (or possibly extended to an iOS device). This is platform specific, though I imagine it could get ported to http://www.gnustep.org/ [gnustep.org]

Re:It's about damn time (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40937755)

Why would anyone pay for a text editor when there are extremely powerful free alternatives? And regarding jEdit... you really need an entire java environment just to edit text?

Personally, I can't imagine needing more than Vim offers. What compelling features do other editors offer?

Re:It's about damn time (4, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#40938069)

Why would anyone pay for a text editor when there are extremely powerful free alternatives? And regarding jEdit... you really need an entire java environment just to edit text?

Personally, I can't imagine needing more than Vim offers. What compelling features do other editors offer?

Well, if you use EMACS, you can run an entire operating system in your text editor, play Pong, compile and run your LISP code, run Vim, etc.

Honestly though, I've used TextMate, BBEdit, Smultron, jEdit, XCode, EMACS, ed on the terminal, etc. and usually end up coming back to OS X Vim. The only ones I've liked better were one that was designed for LaTeX (can't remember its name atm) and a python-based editor I used for a number of years (it had excellent context-aware tab completion and superior syntax highlighting, neither of which I've been able to get quite right in Vim after all these years).

Re:vim (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 2 years ago | (#40939301)

I love vim for:
- fast file creation and fairly complex repetitive changes within a single file.
- its guaranteed availability on any linux/unix/macosx box around.

I find vim a little tiresome for find and replace, or working on 8 files at once or whatever, once the project becomes a tree of 30, 50, ... files in multiple directories.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Jezral (449476) | about 2 years ago | (#40938119)

jEdit's only flaw is that it is Java. Asides from that, it is a solid Unicode capable cross-platform editor that can work with files over SSH. Synchronizing your sessions, configuration, and plugins is as simple as copying over your .jedit folder, even between Windows and Linux.

I so far haven't found a single other editor with all those features. Do tell me if one exists...

Re:It's about damn time (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40938295)

Um, vim? Vim has Unicode(multibyte) and SSH(netrw), and keeps everything in ~/.vim. Am I missing something?

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939545)

It's 2012 for starters.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 2 years ago | (#40938129)

They offer nothing except a GUI !
You could achieve the all the "special" jEdit functionality, ex: search and replace with the result of a script, in Vim with VimScript but I prefer BeanShell [beanshell.org] to VimScript [sourceforge.net] so I use jEdit...

Re:It's about damn time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938163)

I took the liberty of fixing your message... there were a few unclear parts

Hi, I've never had to refactor a large pile of source code before.

Signed,
A guy stuck in 1973.

PS - what's a 'computer'?

Re:It's about damn time (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 2 years ago | (#40938319)

I agree. I have been using Geany as my development editor and Kate (embedded in the Krusader file manager, pretty much like midnight commander's built-in editor), and I don't think any paid alternative can top those two. Gedit is kinda nice, too, and there are the console editors like vim, emacs, nano and joe, even mcedit, that are very handy to have.
Not to mention I make a point of creating software with zero costs other than my power bills. I make FOSS with FOSS. Even if it can be 20% more painful than paid software. I have enough patience. Also I like doing small modifications to my editors for convenience, and closed-source won't cut.

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938471)

"Personally, I can't imagine needing more than Vim offers. What compelling features do other editors offer?"

It writes code for you while you take your much deserved nap, gramps.
And now I'll get off your lawn.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

6ULDV8 (226100) | about 2 years ago | (#40938715)

For $10 more (what's that, about eight Euros?), you could buy SublimeText or UltraEdit and get some of those new features you've been waiting for. At least run the 30 day trial to see for yourself. I use Sublime and it's been a good choice for me. Sublime also handles large files much better than TextMate. I've used it on Postgres dumps in the 4GB range just to see. Scrolling was slow on my MacBook Pro with only 8GB RAM, but I could do it.

As for getting big bucks for years, it's likely that Allan is tired of maintaining it. Version 1.5 is a great editor as is. Users always want more and he probably found a new shiny project to tickle his fancy. Releasing as GPL is a wonderful bit of philanthropy.

Re:It's about damn time (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40938737)

>>>Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.

Funny.. my PC never needs fixing. 10 years of Windows XP and still going strong. There was only one time I had a problem, so I ran AVG from a CD and the problem went-away. How many Macs can claim 10 years of use w/ just one minor issue?

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938959)

I still have a working grape iMac from 1993 that has never had a single issue and a 2001 Powerbook that still works fine, though it's had it's battery replaced.

Re:It's about damn time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938987)

Do you use MyCleanPC?

Re:It's about damn time (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40939113)

LOL your sig is the truth.

And this is likely the last we hear of it... (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40937501)

From most of the reviews I've been hearing for its in-development versions, it sounds like it has some significant bugs that remain to be fixed, as well as some significant features still missing from it. It's nowhere near solid enough yet, and most of the folks who've been a part of the community and following its development seem to agree that open source is where it's going to go to die a slow death.

I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

Emacs (-1, Troll)

DeeEff (2370332) | about 2 years ago | (#40937535)

Can we take some of this code and give emacs a decent editor already?

Also, I noticed there's some fortran code in there. What is going on?

Sublime Text 2 (5, Informative)

liamevo (1358257) | about 2 years ago | (#40937565)

Sublime is kinda taking textmates place.

http://www.sublimetext.com/ [sublimetext.com] + http://wbond.net/sublime_packages/package_control [wbond.net]

Re:Sublime Text 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937977)

While Sublime is nice (and multi-platform), its text navigation on the Mac feels slightly off whereas TextMate's has always felt spot-on.

I'm sure I could spent hours with Sublime's key-mapping configuration and get it work, but so far it's not quite irritated me enough to invest that time.

Re:Sublime Text 2 (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40938141)

That's not hard consider Textmate releases came to a standstill ages ago.

Re:Sublime Text 2 (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 2 years ago | (#40938235)

I thought sublime text was shareware, is it not the case?

Re:Sublime Text 2 (3, Informative)

greg_robson (638474) | about 2 years ago | (#40938665)

Download and evaluate the full version for free... it does produce a dialog box on every 20th save asking if you would like to buy, which is fairly unobtrusive.

$59 for a single user license. Bulk discounts apply
http://www.sublimetext.com/buy [sublimetext.com]

Since it was recommended by colleagues at a new place, I enjoyed it after 5 minutes, loved it after an hour, and depend on every day. I have come to depend on it's features like editing with mutiple cursors, simple interface and keyboard controls as alternatives to switching to the menus.

Even though the nag dialog is not much of a nag we intend to buy licenses as it is stable, feature packed and fast.

The $59 is a lot less than the cost of the time it has saved me (or cost me in crashes).

Re:Sublime Text 2 (3, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#40938635)

Sublime 2 is amazing. Speaking as someone who wrote his own editor, and has tried out a multitude (vim-gtk, emacs, geany, textwrangler, notepad++), so far it is my absolute favorite. I hope he updates universal goto to make it more powerful, but so far, sublime has features, performance, cross platform compat, and an amazing user experience. Worth the investment!

Re:Sublime Text 2 (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#40939455)

Wow. Thanks for that link, I haven't looked for a new text editor for a long time, tried a few IDEs recently and came to the same conclusion I've always come (i.e. they're sluggish, they suck as editors and the fabled "IDE magic" doesn't work half of the time on my projects).

ST2 is the first real contender to TextMate I've seen. I just might switch. At least I'll be giving it a try.

Great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40937579)

That means I can finally add EOL characters to the last line of all text files! I talked to the guy on IRC a few weeks ago and he was extremely against doing this despite me pointing out that Xcode, vim, etc. did it and it was the norm among UNIX systems (not to mention that clang and gcc actually complain about the missing EOL at EOF with -pedantic). TextMate is otherwise a great editor, I gave the trial a spin and was quite happy with it, but that little issue with the missing EOLs drove me right back to vim and Xcode.

unexpected (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#40937607)

Had you told me during my Linux years that I would one day spend money on a text editor, I'd have laughed you out of the room. Years later, I'm a happy TextMate user and it kicks every IDE I've tried in the nuts. Yeah, sometimes I'd wish for some of the IDE features, but every ... single ... one ... that I've tried has an editor that sucks compared to TextMate. The best ones just suck, the worse ones don't even compare. And in the end, I spend more time editing code than looking at fancy class navigation bars.

So I'm really curious about where a Free Software version of TextMate will go. Not sure if I'd rather go to bed (11 pm right now) or get all the dependencies and give it a try. Maybe if someone would post a binary, that would be really cool. Yeah, I've become lazy.

Re:unexpected (4, Funny)

gomiam (587421) | about 2 years ago | (#40937781)

...and it kicks every IDE I've tried in the nuts.

Perhaps you should have tried those IDEs in a computer.

Re:unexpected (2)

joh (27088) | about 2 years ago | (#40938881)

If you use more than one programming language using one IDE often isn't really an option. And then you're maybe editing other text files anyway. A good editor *is* a useful thing to have.

Re:unexpected (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40937933)

I use TextMate as my primary Python development environment. My first thought upon hearing that it was going open source was "minimalist Python IDE."

Re:unexpected (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#40938919)

Try a decent text editor some day, such as geany.

Re:unexpected (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#40939375)

I've just had one look at the screenshots.

Let me put it this way: If this was your daughter, I'm sure she has a nice character, and maybe she is really smart, too. But, to put it nicely, I just don't date women so ugly I wouldn't want to be caught dead with them.

My entire life I have hated text editors that give me icons and a mouse-driven interface. I've just (thanks to some other comment) discovered Sublime Text 2 - and they do that part very, very right: When I'm in a text editor, I'm obviously editing text, and I'll be 10x as fast with a keyboard-driven interface.

And geany looks so horribly ugly, if it's any good as an editor, I suggest starting a fund to buy the dev team a graphics and UI designer.

Re:unexpected (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#40939473)

This is a GTK+ application. It only looks as good as your GTK+ theme and font setup. The one in the screenshots of the official website indeed looks a bit ugly.

Re:unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939315)

I'm sure I'll get the usual riled up bullshit KDE-hate, but Kile was pretty good IMO.

Port it! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40937671)

I'd really love to see a generic Unix/X11 version. (LiGNUx, of course, .is where I'll be using it, but why make it unnecessarily narrow...)

Re:Port it! (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#40937899)

I've found gedit to be the best text editor. Native to Linux and there is a Mac port.

I'm doing a linux port (5, Interesting)

mikeken (907710) | about 2 years ago | (#40937681)

Seriously, if anyone one is interested in helping or collaborating or anything like that just email me: mike {[ et ]} computershine,com

Re:I'm doing a linux port (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#40938107)

Are you going to use OpenStep libraries as the base?

If you do, it'll be a trivial port to Windows as well.

Re:I'm doing a linux port (2)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#40938285)

I think you should talk to the GNUStep people. They could use a full featured editor, the port will be much much easier to GNUStep than generic Linux....

I am too lazy to try and install it. (4, Interesting)

polymeris (902231) | about 2 years ago | (#40937743)

So can someone explain what makes this text editor so popular? Is it features, feel, performance, configurability? A careful balance of all of these?

How does it compare to some of Linux' standard GUI text editors? Say gEdit, kate, geany?

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (2)

calzones (890942) | about 2 years ago | (#40937869)

It's not it's insanely discrete undo behavior, that's for sure. :P

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (3, Interesting)

47Ronin (39566) | about 2 years ago | (#40938009)

Some of the magic can be found in the screencasts of the software: http://macromates.com/screencasts [macromates.com]

Notice though that these were shot in 2008 and earlier...

Integration with the OS has been a big feature of TextMate and Coda (which is why the users are such zealots)... oh yeah and editable snippet bundles per programming language. http://net.tutsplus.com/articles/editorials/are-textmate-and-coda-yesterdays-editors/ [tutsplus.com]

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#40938013)

I use TextMate because it's small, fast, has lots of features that I never use that stay completely out of my way, renders text nicely, and ISN'T (necessarily) a one-window system. Did I mention it's fast?

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#40938177)

It's not really anything special now, imo. It used to be one of the best but everyone caught up while textmate sat still.

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (2)

joh (27088) | about 2 years ago | (#40938983)

So can someone explain what makes this text editor so popular? Is it features, feel, performance, configurability? A careful balance of all of these?

How does it compare to some of Linux' standard GUI text editors? Say gEdit, kate, geany?

Well, it's a bit of a modern looking, even somewhat stylish, but limited reinvention of Emacs. It has lots of useful features, about a million shortcuts and you can easily write simple extensions in any language you like (you can feed the selected text, current line etc. to snippets of sh, php, perl, tcl, python, ruby or whatever you want and then do something with what your script returns). And bind that to shortcuts. It also comes already with lots of useful things and modes for a bunch of languages. And it still manages to look and feel quite minimalistic.

I would have been totally happy with the current Textmate just cared for. There are lots of things you could improve it in without totally rewriting it.

Re:I am too lazy to try and install it. (2)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#40939431)

I've been using TextMate for several years. It has lots going for it, the primary point being that it is a text editor and it knows it. It doesn't try to do 500 unrelated things, but focusses on doing the one thing it was designed for really well. It follows the Mac philosophy in many ways. It gets out of your way and lets you do the actual text editing.

Yeah, it's rock-solid, too. Can't remember if it ever crashed on me.

It also has tons of plugins. For example, I use Subversion extensively, so I have an SVN plugin installed and can update, commit, etc. with a few keyboard shortcuts.

It blows gEdit and kate out of the waters. I've only seen screenshots of geany and that's enough to not make me try that one. My editor of choice back in my Linux days was FTE and nothing ever came close to it. TextMate is the one editor I found that beats FTE, and I tried finding something that does that many, many, many times.

Unfortunate license choice (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#40937943)

You should have dual licensed it, or licensed it under GPL3, but with an assignment of rights back to you for contributions. As things sit, you will not be allowed to sell this in the App store for either desktop of iDevice use.

Re:Unfortunate license choice (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938161)

You're right, "you" won't. But he can license his code any way he likes, including as required for the iDevice stores.

And he doesn't have to accept anybody's contribution back to the main code base, without demanding assignment of rights as you suggest.

Re:Unfortunate license choice (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#40938977)

You're right, "you" won't. But he can license his code any way he likes, including as required for the iDevice stores.

And he doesn't have to accept anybody's contribution back to the main code base, without demanding assignment of rights as you suggest.

The particular venue he picked for the release requires that he not restrict contributions in this fashion. A dual license would have allowed him to meet the free GitHub hosting terms while at the same time requiring an assignment of rights for committers.

Re:Unfortunate license choice (1)

ahankinson (1249646) | about 2 years ago | (#40939051)

Unless you can tell that he isn't a premium subscriber, there's no restriction on what you can do with your code on GitHub. Yes, it's free for open-source projects, but you can also open-source projects with a paid account, in which case you can do whatever you want with it.

Re:Unfortunate license choice (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | about 2 years ago | (#40938435)

The fact GPL3 doesn't allow other people to build this project and offer it for sale in the App Store is exactly the reason why the author chose GPL3.

Re:Unfortunate license choice (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#40938617)

Either clever or evil. Maybe both. :)

However, he can't offer it either (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#40938933)

If I make contributions to the code under the GPLv3, then the code as a whole is GPLv3, and he cannot license it however "he" wants unless he gets an assignment of rights, or excises my contributions.

This lack of foresight is the same reason Linus doesn't have assigns for Linux, and therefore why it's impossible for Linux itself to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, or for a third party to offer Linux under the terms of GPLv3.

When contributing to GCC, you have to execute assigns as well, as the FSF is well aware of this issue. See:

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters [gnu.org]

The problem with putting it out there where he did, without a dual license + assigns clause, is that he can't act as a gatekeeper for "Legally Signifcant Changes".

Note that dual licensing doesn't necessarily require that the alternate license permit distribution, so it's not like it would undermine the GPLv3.

Re:However, he can't offer it either (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#40939193)

This lack of foresight is the same reason Linus doesn't have assigns for Linux, and therefore why it's impossible for Linux itself to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, or for a third party to offer Linux under the terms of GPLv3.

And here I thought that was an intentional choice so that neither he nor anyone else would have the option of taking Linux proprietary, thus ensuring a level playing field for all. He even excised the "or any later version clause" from the GPL2 so that RMS couldn't change the rules at a later date (how many millions would it take for RMS to sell out and release GPL4: Microsoft owns everything edition? Who takes over control of the GPL when he dies?)

Re:However, he can't offer it either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939373)

May I direct your attention to the word "or"? I don't think you know what it means. Eat your own FUD, loser.

Compared to notepad++ and other editors (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#40937995)

What does it have and what are its weaknesses?

Re:Compared to notepad++ and other editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40938359)

It's Mac-only.

Re:Compared to notepad++ and other editors (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#40939203)

So that's the strength, what are it's weaknesses? :-P

Re:Compared to notepad++ and other editors (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40939135)

It got copied over and over since the initial release but at the time it was tremendously more extensible and customizable through bundles. If you didn't like the formatting rules, code snippets, etc., for a given language (or be that wasn't built-in) you could customize the bundle to fit your needs.

Its weak points are search and large files. You can't search in a directory, which is an occasional annoyance. Search can also be slow on larger projects. Large files (>= 500kb) can also be slow to open.

Macvim (1)

roror (767312) | about 2 years ago | (#40938375)

Is it better than macvim?

Kudos and Thanks go out to the developer! (5, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | about 2 years ago | (#40938477)

I really don't get most of the crap and indifference here.
Textmate is an editor that's actually making money being sold on Mac OS X - that the man decides to release it as FOSS is a very noble move. He probably made his share he'd hoped for ten times over, but he could have just kept it the way it was. He didn't, and now we've got a serious editor with solid chances of taking the throne for editors. ... Once it's cross-plattform that is.

I've got my own story on Textmate:
Back in 2003 my mobile computer of choice was a 13" G4 iBook, mainly to be able to do Flash development. I had my Flash IDE running, Eclipse for PHP, and some other stuff and the iBook performance was maxed out. I couldn't run my favorite Editor jEdit without serious issues - its built on Java. It was then that I decided to go with an Editor written in a C language. I seriously considered Textmate, but then I thought, if all this editor has going for it that you can programm it in its own script PL, then I might as well use Emacs and be completely independant. I installed Emacs the same night and started to learn some of its commands. ... I use Aquamacs and Emacs to this very day when all else fails and I need a fast editor that can handle large files.

Textmate going FOSS might just have me try the switch. ... This is awesome.
Show some respect, guys!

My 2 cents.

Re:Kudos and Thanks go out to the developer! (4, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40939241)

I really don't get most of the crap and indifference here.

The project has been a work in progress for years and this might very well be Allan's way of saying "I'm burnt out guys, here's the code, please make it live because I no longer can."

Port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40939229)

If this wants to be open, it needs to get away from the most closed OS there is. I've seen partial clones on Windows and Linux, but they're not Textmate. Now that it's open source this is a big chance to open this great software to other platforms "in a time where [their] platform vendor is taking steps to limit [their] freedom".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>