[TxMt] Bloating?

[Gregg Thomason]

On Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 08:33AM, Jeroen van der Ham <jeroen at je-ju.net> wrote:

>On 23-03-2005 23:29, Gregg Thomason wrote:
>> Just about every professional programmer's editor on Mac, Linux and
>> Windows has it. This has become a bullet-point you *have* to add, no
>> matter how nonsensical.
>
>I really don't agree there 
BBEdit/TextWrangler: built in S/FTP
Emacs: built in S/FTP (via Tramp)
UltraEdit: built in S/FTP
SlickEdit: built in S/FTP
Codewright: built in S/FTP
MS Visual Studio: plugins exist (yes it's 2005 and Microsoft isn't really network aware yet)
Dreamweaver: FTP and probably S/FTP via plugins

There's more if you Google it. vim is the only editor with a religious following that doesn't natively support it, pretty much, but you can always ':e sftp://user@host:/blahblah/file.txt' or whatever if you're so inclined, as it's smart enough to be its own terminal.

>The features of TextMate are all very useful. And new features are only
>added if Allan thinks it is good and useful.
So when this list is besieged by people who are switching from Ultraedit (for example), and have to now shell out for a new FTP app, "just spend another $30" is what we tell them? Or "here's some hack that isn't totally seamless"? If it's replacing an existing app, it has to replicate workflow /exactly/. 

If that wasn't true, everyone would have switched to Macs by now if only to get away from viruses and spyware. 

Consider that TextMate didn't have a bloody preferences window when it debuted, because it "wasn't need" and "against the philosophy" (sorry forgot the exact verbiage). It has one now. See my point?

I'm not saying built-in S/FTP is the best idea, ever. I have already said I prefer a user-extensible plugin system. I *am* saying that "it's coming at some point" and/or "it's against the philosophy" are really bad answers to questions WRT advocacy.