[TxMt] Re: TextMate 1 vs 2

[Travis Dunn]

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion is that if a feature existed in TextMate 1 and it doesn't in TextMate 2, you can't tell someone they are "doing it wrong" because they used the feature as intended. Maybe it wasn't priority to think through how to make it work in TM2, but it was a real feature in v1, so someone thought it was a good idea and people used it.

The real problem (as i understand it) is that the new "file browser" is actually basically a file browser and it wasn't necessarily in TM1. So to get that feature back, a little bit of thinking is needed. I'm gonna re-read your post and see if I can pull out the individual features that you used and how you used them. What we do know is that TM2 supports a .tm_properties file that has a lot of power, have you looked into all of the properties it supports, to at least bring back some of the features you were using? A good list of properties can be found here: https://gist.github.com/1478685

I don't think there's anything personal intended here by anyone, but I also think calling someone's work a "huge disappointment" is rather harsh, and will be taken personal if intended that way or not. Also, generally i just disagree with the approach of "I dont want to switch to another editor but if X isn't implemented/fixed, i'll have to", if you need to switch to something that works better for you, go for it. A single editor is never going to be everything to everyone.

Try to remember that with the project being open sourced and on github now, there are a lot more support requests coming in, so everything is probably spread a bit thin.

Finally, your laundry is done and folded. I brought you a snack pack to eat while you watch Darkwing Duck.

*bow*


On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Jason McC. Smith <jason at ncpod.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Travis Dunn <tdunn13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can make an argument that the point of the filesystem is to organize files/projects and that's how most editors work.
> 
> And one can also argue that file-level organization and task-level
> organization are two completely different things.  One is for storage
> and conceptual partitioning, one is for workflow needs in the moment.
> They are two completely different needs, and TM1 had a beautiful
> solution for the second.  I weep for its loss.
> 
>> I've been a textmate user for a long time and I've never used "projects", that's not to say that I think it is an unused feature at all, or that some support for those features shouldn't be brought back, but I don't see it as a major feature, and i certainly don't see it as a huge disappointment.
> 
> Understood.  I do, and I'm not the only one.  It was such an insanely
> simple thing to use, and had a tremendous amount of value for creating
> dynamic workspaces on the fly, while allowing them to be saved for
> later retrieval and/or reference.
> 
>> Why not suggest a few ideas for how to bring the feature back, or make it better instead of threatening to switch to another editor.
> 
> It's been tried on here, with little effect other than triggering a
> chorus of "you're doing it wrong"... annoying.
> 
> Perhaps this time will be different?
> 
>> An ongoing post is already up here: http://wiki.macromates.com/Suggestions/ProjectManagementInTextMate2
> 
> Thanks for the pointer, I'll be adding/watching that.
> 
>> I don't think TM2 is a disappointment at all,
> 
> No, not the entirety of TM2 at *all*, just the removal of what was, to
> me, for my needs, *the* killer feature.  The rest is a fantastic bit
> of kit, and the reason I *haven't* bailed... the question is whether
> it's enough to keep me from doing so, given my environmental
> constraints.
> 
> And I'm not the only one.
> 
>> and everyone has busted ass working on it (at least since it went open source), so maybe keep the negative to a minimal and try to be helpful rather than hurtful
> 
> I don't see how reporting that what is seen by many as an advance has,
> in fact, gutted the usefulness for some of us to the point of us
> looking elsewhere is 'hurtful'.  There's nothing personal intended in
> it.  We're bigger than that.  (Franky, the reason I have more or less
> given up on seeing this re-appear is due to some amazingly arrogant
> responses I've seen on this list, along the lines that anyone who
> needs projects is simply not a 'serious programmer'...  It's been
> positively eye-rolling to watch unfold.)
> 
>> - Mom
> 
> Is my laundry done yet?
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Walter Lee Davis <waltd at wdstudio.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If Chocolat ever gets the "magic clean up indenting" command, it's going to be very hard to stick with TextMate.
>>> 
>>> Walter
>>> 
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 2:25 PM, dvlogic wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Agreed 100% - I keep going back to TM1 because it just works for my workflow
>>>> - TM2 has been a huge disappointment.  I've also been playing with Sublime 2
>>>> and feel it might have potential.
>>>> 
>>>> -- dv
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/TextMate-1-vs-2-tp25768p25771.html
>>>> Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> textmate mailing list
>>>> textmate at lists.macromates.com
>>>> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> textmate mailing list
>>> textmate at lists.macromates.com
>>> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> textmate mailing list
>> textmate at lists.macromates.com
>> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
> 
> _______________________________________________
> textmate mailing list
> textmate at lists.macromates.com
> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate