I'm off to place my order right now -- I've been waiting for it!
On 2/23/07 10:27 AM, in article F8FA23A9-DEDB-4443-B2C9-7C5F8C369F1A@grayproductions.net, "James Edward Gray II" <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
<advertisement>
And a little bird tells me that the book for it will ship early next
week:http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/titles/textmate/index.html
(Amazon already has it in stock.)
</advertisement>
Chad Perrin wrote:
Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
especially since Qt generally means "plus thirty KDE libraries".
. o 0 (Huh?)
KDE depends on Qt. This is ostensibly not the case the other way around,
Qt being a separate product predating KDE by five years. It is
alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
(Were I feeling risky, I'd tell you to get your facts right before
trolling.)
David Vallner
I'm just wondering whether E is shipping with a bunch of Textmate bundles
taken without permission from the actual Textmate app. Anyone know?
I believe the developer contacted and talked with TM's developer a while back as he blogged about it. I downloaded it 6? months ago and found it to be useless, buggy crap... and for something that he was offering (still is) as a 30-day trial/$40 to buy beta (pre alpha) version. Actually it kinda ticked me off the way he talked it up and got (what seemed to me at the time) some good buzz about his editor that he squandered by not having something that was ready for release (as i said really buggy)
--
Craig Beck
AIM: kreiggers
That's called project management, and that was put in a few weeks ago
too. You might want to give it another try. I bought the software
and am a very happy user so far.
I've just made another try. And the project management covers my need :-).
Some questions :
- I haven't found a way to change the font size for the project management view (I'm using a 1600x1200 screen so I have to adjust the font size in order to have some comfort)
- What is the easiest way to install Cygwin which is required for the bundle feature. My station is not connected directly to Internet. So I need a standalone package (the lightest posible).
Alexander's a very responsive coder, and I haven't had any problems with e.
Great.
CM.
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
>I'm just wondering whether E is shipping with a bunch of Textmate
>bundles taken without permission from the actual Textmate app. Anyone
>know?TextMate's bundles are open source, unlike the application. No rules
are broken here.Allan Odgaard, the creator of TextMate, has been supportive of the e
editor effort.
Ah, good to know. I retract all aspersions cast.
James Edward Gray II
--Greg
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 01:56:42AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Gregory Seidman wrote:
How many files are in your project? How big are all those files
(aggregate)? What machine is this running on? How much physical RAM do
you have? How many other applications are you running? How much free
disk space do you have?
Not trying to be defensive, curious for the benchmark data point.
On Feb 23, 11:05 am, Chris Gernon <kabi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Bleything wrote:
> TextMate is slow? What part(s)?"Find in Project" regularly takes upwards of 60 seconds for me, during
which TextMate is completely unresponsive, its memory usage rockets from
30 MB up to over 900 MB (!), and every other application I'm running
slows down to the point of near-unusability (probably due to the memory
usage).
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
> especially since Qt generally means "plus thirty KDE libraries".
>. o 0 (Huh?)
KDE depends on Qt. This is ostensibly not the case the other way around,
Qt being a separate product predating KDE by five years. It is
alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt "generall means", not "always
means".
(Were I feeling risky, I'd tell you to get your facts right before
trolling.)
Good thing you weren't feeling that way, then.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:04AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
[snip]
I downloaded it 6? months ago and
found it to be useless, buggy crap... and for something that he was
offering (still is) as a 30-day trial/$40 to buy beta (pre alpha)
version.
FWIW, the author has changed the licensing so that the trial is no
longer 30 days (despite what the front page says), instead lasting as
long as the program is still in beta. [1]
Actually it kinda ticked me off the way he talked it up and
got (what seemed to me at the time) some good buzz about his editor
that he squandered by not having something that was ready for release
Definitely still a beta app and, after having played with it for a few
hours, certainly not (currently) worthy of the moniker "TextMate for
Windows". No folding, no word completion, no adjustable or visual wrap
column, no function popup, can't use bold versions of bitmap
fonts...and so on.
Still, it's early on, and holds promise for some features not in
TextMate (like collaboration and document versioning). Now that it's
free for you to help improve it, I encourage you (if you want a
TextMate-like editor for Windows) to try it out and report bugs and
features you desire.
On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, Craig Beck <craigb...@luckybonza.com> wrote:
Chris, try removing the logs folder reference from your TextMate project.
FWIW, about the only thing I miss from BBEdit is that BBEdit's text editing felt qualitatively snappier.
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Chris Gernon wrote:
Ben Bleything wrote:
TextMate is slow? What part(s)?
"Find in Project" regularly takes upwards of 60 seconds for me, during
which TextMate is completely unresponsive, its memory usage rockets from
30 MB up to over 900 MB (!), and every other application I'm running
slows down to the point of near-unusability (probably due to the memory
usage).It's also a good deal slower than TextWrangler at opening large text
files (say, over 8 MB).Having said that, it's still the only text editor I use. It's a
fantastic piece of software. I wouldn't mind seeing Find in Project
speeded up in the next version, though.
Gavin Kistner wrote:
How many files are in your project? How big are all those files
(aggregate)? What machine is this running on? How much physical RAM do
you have? How many other applications are you running? How much free
disk space do you have?Not trying to be defensive, curious for the benchmark data point.
I'm glad you asked. No, I mean I'm REALLY glad you asked. I'm
embarrassed to admit this, but in the course of answering your question,
I discovered that my project's log files had crept up to about 210 MB
since the last time I cleared them.
After clearing those out (and bringing the size of the project as a
whole down to 7.6 MB), Find in Project runs in about a second. Whoops!
Wait, what? It takes a long time to scan through a million lines of log
files? Who would have thought? 
So um yeah I hereby rescind my previous comment.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
> > especially since Qt generally means "plus thirty KDE libraries".
>
> . o 0 (Huh?)
>
> KDE depends on Qt. This is ostensibly not the case the other way around,
> Qt being a separate product predating KDE by five years. It is
> alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
> using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt "generall means", not "always
means".
I've written several Qt apps and never used a KDE library. Many commercial
products (e.g. Opera) are written with Qt alone and no KDE. I don't
think there would be any significant value in the KDE libraries for
implementing Textmate on Qt (unless they wanted to make it embeddable as a
KPart, which would be cool but probably not worth the trouble or KDE
dependency).
> (Were I feeling risky, I'd tell you to get your facts right before
> trolling.)Good thing you weren't feeling that way, then.
I'm tempted, but I'll resist. While the majority of open source apps that
use Qt do so through KDE, the same is not true for commercial apps. Your
statement that "Qt generally means 'plus thirty KDE libraries'" is, at
best, only applicable to open source Qt apps, which makes it irrelevant to
the discussion of Textmate. At worst it is actual trolling.
--Greg
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:47:33AM +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:04AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
an exception is the reason I said that Qt "generall means", not "always
means".
Skype. Opera (the Linux version definitely, not sure about the Windows
one). Perforce. This makes it roughly a +INF times more apps that I
regularly use over those that only use Gtk. (Which has still noticeable
visual warts on Windowsen, so I'm biased.)
(Those three were off the top of my head, by the way.)
And especially if TextMate were to be rewritten in Qt4, using KDE
instead of Qt4 would mean dropping some native fidelity on the
originating system. Given how Mac people dote on their UI, in the highly
unlikely event that such a rewrite were to happen, I believe the
dev-team wouldn't choose to use KDE. (More so because the suggested
motivation for such a rewrite would be higher portability, and a KDE
dependency would exclude Windows, increasing the potential market much
less.)
David Vallner
quackle.org
Fast becoming the standard companion for the serious scrabble player -
is that credible enough? 
martin
On 2/24/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
Gavin Kistner wrote:
> How many files are in your project? How big are all those files
> (aggregate)? What machine is this running on? How much physical RAM do
> you have? How many other applications are you running? How much free
> disk space do you have?
>
> Not trying to be defensive, curious for the benchmark data point.I'm glad you asked. No, I mean I'm REALLY glad you asked. I'm
embarrassed to admit this, but in the course of answering your question,
I discovered that my project's log files had crept up to about 210 MB
since the last time I cleared them.
I'm glad this turned out to be the case. I used to think TM was slow
too until I figured out this exact problem.
After clearing those out (and bringing the size of the project as a
whole down to 7.6 MB), Find in Project runs in about a second. Whoops!
Awesome.
Ben
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007, Chris Gernon wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > Actually, using Qt 4 might be a good way to keep me from trying it out,
> > > especially since Qt generally means "plus thirty KDE libraries".
> >
> > . o 0 (Huh?)
> >
> > KDE depends on Qt. This is ostensibly not the case the other way around,
> > Qt being a separate product predating KDE by five years. It is
> > alltogether feasible to make Qt-based non-KDE applications. (As I do so
> > using PyQt4 whenever I need a quick GUI hack.)
>
> The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
> entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
> rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
> credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
> an exception is the reason I said that Qt "generall means", not "always
> means".I've written several Qt apps and never used a KDE library. Many commercial
products (e.g. Opera) are written with Qt alone and no KDE. I don't
think there would be any significant value in the KDE libraries for
implementing Textmate on Qt (unless they wanted to make it embeddable as a
KPart, which would be cool but probably not worth the trouble or KDE
dependency).
You're in a minority, then, in my experience. Also . . . since I don't
use much proprietary software, and you apparently do, your experience is
likely to differ from mine.
> > (Were I feeling risky, I'd tell you to get your facts right before
> > trolling.)
>
> Good thing you weren't feeling that way, then.I'm tempted, but I'll resist. While the majority of open source apps that
use Qt do so through KDE, the same is not true for commercial apps. Your
statement that "Qt generally means 'plus thirty KDE libraries'" is, at
best, only applicable to open source Qt apps, which makes it irrelevant to
the discussion of Textmate. At worst it is actual trolling.
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate, I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
Considering that you're so quick to leap to judgment about trolling, you
sound a bit like a troll yourself.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:22:32AM +0900, Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:47:33AM +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:04AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
Keep in mind I speak from the perspective of someone who very rarely
uses Windows, and even more rarely uses proprietary apps on Linux or
FreeBSD. I've never used Skype, I haven't even seen Opera running on
*someone else's machine* in the last year or two, and Perforce is so far
outside the realm of my day-to-day use that it took me a moment to
remember what it is. (SCM stuff, I think.)
I probably should have been more clear about the fact that I'm speaking
from the perspective of an open source software user. I guess I just
assumed it would be understood, since I'm talking about availability of
something TextMate-ish on FreeBSD and/or Linux.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:32:09AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
> entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
> rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
> credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
> an exception is the reason I said that Qt "generall means", not "always
> means".Skype. Opera (the Linux version definitely, not sure about the Windows
one). Perforce. This makes it roughly a +INF times more apps that I
regularly use over those that only use Gtk. (Which has still noticeable
visual warts on Windowsen, so I'm biased.)
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."
Chad Perrin wrote:
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate.
Actually, that's how I did in fact read Jonas Hartmann's wishful thinking.
E-TextEditor is not a port, but it's not even a Windows "version" of
TextMate for any possible interpretation of the word. It's a completely
distinct product that just happens to have support of TextMate bundles
(whatevertheheck those are) as one of its features (which strikes me as
an odd, but apparently effective marketing move), and maybe shares some
design aims. This product is not relevant to this discussion.
I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
Actually, since the benefit a commercial software company would want to
gain from such a massive body of work would be getting more customers /
sales, a set of dependencies that's more portable and less likely to
alienate users (because of the desktop wars) would indeed make sense.
But that's already going into the realm of setting up pretty straw men.
David Vallner
[...]
> I'm tempted, but I'll resist. While the majority of open source apps
> that use Qt do so through KDE, the same is not true for commercial
> apps. Your statement that "Qt generally means 'plus thirty KDE
> libraries'" is, at best, only applicable to open source Qt apps, which
> makes it irrelevant to the discussion of Textmate. At worst it is
> actual trolling.Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate, I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.
No one was talking about a clone. The discussion was about the Textmate
guys themselves porting to Qt4 to make it cross-platform, and that's why
I'm taking issue with your post. We're specifically talking about a
proprietary application (well, two of them if you count the Windows clone).
You brought up KDE, which is almost exclusively used by open source
applications. It's completely irrelevant.
Considering that you're so quick to leap to judgment about trolling, you
sound a bit like a troll yourself.
Ad hominem. Ignored.
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
--Greg
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:26:09AM +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:22:32AM +0900, Gregory Seidman wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
The "ostensibly" bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it's
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable -- especially since I haven't seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries.
I probably should have been more clear about the fact that I'm speaking
from the perspective of an open source software user.
From which the only thing that follows is that your perspective is
intentionally narrow. Since the vast of open-source development happens
on OSS Unixen, where a KDE dependency is not a limiting factor to any
commercial end, it would make sense that someone making a GUI app on the
Qt side would use the extra rope that KDE would give him for his own
convenience or to get more functionality for his time.
However, TextMate is not a non-profit open-source volunteer project.
Trying to suggest what decisions they'd make while speaking
demonstratively from a perspective that is, as you yourself admit, very
much not the perspective of the TextMate developers strikes me as odd in
the very least.
David Vallner
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:32:09AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
> not be an actual port of TextMate.Actually, that's how I did in fact read Jonas Hartmann's wishful thinking.
E-TextEditor is not a port, but it's not even a Windows "version" of
TextMate for any possible interpretation of the word. It's a completely
distinct product that just happens to have support of TextMate bundles
(whatevertheheck those are) as one of its features (which strikes me as
an odd, but apparently effective marketing move), and maybe shares some
design aims. This product is not relevant to this discussion.
This product is what *started* this discussion. That seems relevant to
me. The slogan for E-TextEditor is also suspicious, as an indicator
that it's a close approximation of TextMate:
E - TextEditor | The power of TextMate on Windows
Yeah, sounds relevant to me.
> I doubt the fact that TextMate is a
> commercial app would be particularly limiting in determining what
> libraries would be used for such a unixy clone of the software.Actually, since the benefit a commercial software company would want to
gain from such a massive body of work would be getting more customers /
sales, a set of dependencies that's more portable and less likely to
alienate users (because of the desktop wars) would indeed make sense.
But that's already going into the realm of setting up pretty straw men.
Since there's already something TextMate-ish on Windows, and TextMate
itself is on MacOS X, all that's left is Linux and BSD for the three
most popular platform niches for text editors. Since the people on this
list are probably more interested in the functionality of TextMate than
they are in the commercial success of the proprietary code of TextMate,
it seems to me we should be talking about if/when similar software will
be available rather than if/when TextMate itself will be more
cross-platform compatible.
Why would I care, one way or the other, whether the creator of TextMate
provides a clone or port for free unices? All I'd really care about is
whether such a thing becomes readily available. I'll stick to
discussing how someone might replicate the functionality and beneficial
interface characteristics on my platform of choice, rather than whether
or not person X will make any money off it.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:45:04AM +0900, David Vallner wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
