> And 3 is not even a major upgrade from ST2, IMHO.

From a development standpoint it likely was. Doing a plug-in rewrite is a ton of work.

Yea, I'm still using v2.0 because I don't want to get burned again. He released v3 a few months after I bought it.

I understand software development isn't cheap but it's kind of annoying that $60 doesn't include free upgrades.

I think it does include free updates. At least, I just copied my code from v2 into v3 and that worked.

  Expiration Date
  Licenses purchased for Sublime Text 3 do not expire, however
  an upgrade fee will be required for Sublime Text 4.

From: http://www.sublimetext.com/sales_faq

What the hell? Sublime Text 3 isn't even out of beta, nor featured on the Sublime Text homepage.

This isn't a "fork" though or at least it doesn't look like it from a cursory look at their website. So they shouldn't be riding the coat tails of sublime at all. I understand a fork doing that but not this.

I guess it depends, at least for me, on how much it looks and feels like Sublime Text and whether it is compatible with the numerous addons there are.

I've been using Sublime Text 2 for a few years now. I'm not sure what a major upgrade would entail when it works so well already. Do Emacs and Vim get 'major upgrades'? [actual question]

> Do Emacs and Vim get 'major upgrades'?

Yeah, they do. It's very hard to do in both cases, for different reasons - licensing for Emacs, code quality/style for Vim - but it happens. For Emacs just read this: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ant... and this: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Ant... (or look at normal changelog, but I kind of like this "backwards in time" format, it's fun :)) to get a feeling for what you'd miss by not doing a "major upgrade".

no, but emacs and vim don't charge 60 bucks per version. I'm not saying this is necessarily negative for ST, but its the point he was making. I frankly think 60 bucks is worth robust support which ST certainly did not have.

Anyways, theres no satisfying HN. When Atom came out, the consensus was that they should've come out and said it was an ST clone upfront. Now someone does that and it seems the tide has changed.

While we're on Atom, since switching I've found its everything ST should've been. Its open source and has a huge community developing very useful plugins (not to mention, they're well integrated from a usability perspective - git/terminal status/linter/etc). Also, I have yet to run into a serious bug/versioning issue which ST plugins were rife with before I dropped it.

I don't think Atom is ready to replace Sublime yet for me. The way it renders text just bugs me for one. The other thing is that it's lacking a good way to do syntax specific settings like in Sublime. Aside from that it's a matter of the plugin ecosystem not being as mature.

Yeah, every font I’ve tried on Atom really doesn’t look good compared to ST on my mac. Even with css tweaks for antialiasing.

Atom is awesome, but I agree that the plugins aren't mature enough yet.

>> no, but emacs and vim don't charge 60 bucks per version

Not that it matters much, but it's actually $70 now: http://www.sublimetext.com/buy

As long as Sublime doesn't go the Jetbrains way where they never reach a stable status, but they keep increasing the version number every year, I'm fine.