I apologize, it's just that being on this list for a while I see the exact same sometimes-less-than-useful-or-constructive threads repeated over and over and over again...
Carry on. No offense intended guys, I suppose I am simply more action-oriented rather than talking-about-it-oriented. "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" and all that. Have a great day. :)
-- Brandon Fryslie
On Friday, September 21, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Max Lein wrote:
On 21.09.2012, at 17:02, Brandon Fryslie <brandon@fryslie.com (mailto:brandon@fryslie.com)> wrote:
Dude, we used TM1.
My post was in reply to Randall Hand who has just discovered TextMate and started this discussion on the mailing list. He probably doesn't know the history of TextMate 2. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Some things are different in TM2, on the vast whole, everything is improved, restructured, cleaned up, and much more powerful.
I haven't really noticed any game changers *for me* in TextMate 2, but that's not supposed to be a complaint.
Sorry some of the features don't comply with your vague, nebulous specifications.
I don't think there is anything »nebulous« or »vague« about missing TM1-style projects or wanting to have a functional bundle editor. While the latter is a matter of time, the former is a design decision made prior to open sourcing TextMate 2.
Textmate 2 is open source now, I can't really see how you can complain like you are whatsoever.
There is no reason for ad hominem attacks and acerbic attitude. Where else other than this mailing list should we exchange opinions on how to make TextMate 2 better? After all, the reason we are here is because we like TextMate and we care that eventually we will have 2.0 final on our SSDs (hopefully before I get tenure, though ;-)). Max _______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com (mailto:textmate@lists.macromates.com) http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate