Sublime Text 3 Build 3080

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by mrec on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @09:30AM (#9256388)

I'm the opposite - bought a license years ago but don't actually use it for much except plaintext.

In my experience the core editor is fast and rock solid, but I think every single extension I've tried has been somewhere between glitchy and completely broken, and debugging/fixing them has soaked up more time than they'd save if they worked perfectly.

Part of the problem may be that extensions seem remarkably keen to take giant dependencies. I think one wanted a full node.js install to do JS linting.

Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by fapjacks on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:12AM (#9257064)

Atom is finally getting to the point that I feel it's competitive with ST. If you haven't lately, give it a try. There is a huge ecosystem of excellent plugins, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by bdcravens on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:02PM (#9257840)

> I think one wanted a full node.js install to do JS linting.

To be fair, Atom requires node.js (recently moved to io.js) to even run (though it's embedded)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by swah on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @10:55AM (#9256946)

That's my experience too, but I find it so superior to Emacs and Vim in other regards and keep using it. What are you using now?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by mrec on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:10PM (#9257893)

For plaintext/markdown/HTML/JS/CSS I basically use vanilla Sublime as a better Notepad. It's not ideal; I bought WebStorm a while back but never got around to trying it.

For statically-typed code, a text editor can't compete with a refactoring IDE (e.g. VS or Eclipse) IMHO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by LeonRobrotsky on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @09:38AM (#9256429)

> Or maybe I've just been unlucky/incompetent.

Every lint extension I've seen seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by lobster_johnson on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @12:39PM (#9257698)

All the ones I use (cppcheck, jshint, jsxhint, ruby, clang) require that you have the toolchains already installed. Seems like a pretty consistent design. Those are the official linters [1], though.

Edit: Checked a bunch of the others, including those for Lua, XML and Python. None of them come bundled with the underlying tool.

[1] https://github.com/SublimeLinter

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by LeonRobrotsky on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @01:36PM (#9258093)

You appear to be correct- my remark was based on what I guess is out of date experience.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by jdc0589 on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @10:19AM (#9256696)

> seems to drag a full install of whatever the popular implementation of the language is.

This is the biggest problem with sublime plugins. dependencies. It is also 100% why I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write (which has really just been JsFormat thus far)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sublime Text 3 Build 3080 by mrec on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @10:43AM (#9256872)

> I refuse to add non-python dependencies to any plugins I write

Is there a Package Control channel that ONLY lists packages following that noble rule? I'd be a lot more willing to try things out from that.

[ Parent | on HN ]