News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Sublime Text 3 Build 3080. Parent comment

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You appear to be correct- my remark was based on what I guess is out of date experience.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