I paid for a license on one of the versions. I initially got upset when there was a major release that auto-updated and I got the pop up. However, I looked at my purchase date and it was so many years ago, and I was able to roll back to the version I paid for, so I definitely got my money’s worth. I didn’t end up buying the newer version, because work was forcing me onto VS Code.
That guy is living off that money, and Sublime is one of the best text editors out there. Consider it like a SaaS, but something doesn't break or stop when your license expires.
If you think the price doesn't reflect the value the software brings, then it's your choice, and that's fair. But as for the things it brings to the table, I don't think it's that expensive.
I pay similar for BBEdit, and it saves my bacon regularly. Plus it's dependable.
I think Sublime Text was the first software I ever paid for. It has paid that back handsomely. And no, I’m not doing the usual “I’m a working professional so my time is directly attributable to my text editor” thing. I understand there are free options. I pay for it despite there being competition because of the extra value it brings me.
I was interested in the value that it brings you. I'm a former Sublime Text user and I switched to VS Code some time ago.
Do you also use Sublime Text as your primary IDE just like author does?
————
Mirroring the structure of the article:
1) Regarding the section about LSPs: do you also have the need to be able to “just add an LSP installed as a binary in on your usr/local/bin” even though by the author's own admission “VS Code is the LSP king”?
Kind of ironic to have the author say in the introduction about VS Code that “it probably has taken inspiration from Sublime. So why not check out one of the OGs” and then a bit later proceeds to say that the LSP “tech originat[es] with that editor [VS Code]”. I'm returning the question to the author and you: why not check out the OG?
2) Regarding the section about snippets author says that “VS Code can do this” and even that “the syntax for it is a bit nicer”.
3) Regarding workspaces VS Code does all of that. Author admits that he “ha[s]n't used it personally, so [he] can't speak to it much”.
4) Regarding build systems VS Code does all of that and it's easier because contrary to “the Package Control [that] is not part of Sublime” (and that you have to uglily inject in the Sublime Text console to get working), the VS Code plugin repository has everything already ready-to-use so that you don't need to reinvent the wheel. You can if you want though; Sublime Text doesn't provide anything extra in that regard.
5) Regarding the “Multiple cursors” VS Code has it as well.
6) Regarding the block-level key bindings, have you ever needed them? For me the last thing I want is for my shortcuts to change dynamically based on which block I am in the file. Note that in Sublime Text “they cannot be saved on a per-project basis”, which is awkward to say the least. I would (much) rather have project-level keybindings rather than only block-level keybindings that apply globally.
7) Regarding using “Python all the way down” rather than JavaScript, I'm surprised that the author finds it to be a good thing considering that they primarily use it for “web-dev” and all their examples are frontend Javascript code.
8) Finally, the author complains about the terrible documentation of Sublime Text, the lack of a plugin system, and the fact that for the 3rd-party hacked-together plugin management system he finds that getting them on the “Package Control site to be quite a chore”. I have a ton more complaints about Sublime Text to add on top of that.
I would rather directly donate money[1] to small developers rather than — as another commenter puts it — “supporting and using the products developed by a small team of dedicated engineers ...”
On the LSP stuff, yes it did originate in VS code. I just find the experience in Sublime to be better. How ironic is that?
I didn't consider the conflict between how I said "try the OG" but then say "VS code is the OG". It is a good point.
I show an example of the block level key binding. So yeah, I needed it and used it. I only showed one example but I have a few more that are my own I just didnt write about them.
Around python vs. js for plugins, have you tried to make a VS code plugin? You need a package.json, npm, and vsce installed globally. Which language is being used is usually the least of my problems. For Sublime, you need a single .py file! Someone shared this 9 line plugin they made: https://gist.github.com/ckunte/31500c17452b0fd8c55bc9460bd9c... - I don't tthink plugin development could be more simple
I bet an LLM could spit out single file plugins very easily. VS code plugins are clearly more work to create and deploy even after taking into account my critiques of Package Control. At the end of the day you can just toss your plugin in a folder or push it to github and reference it with a URL.
I didn't say the docs were "terrible". I just said they were disjointed. They are complete and fully document the APIs. I just wish they were more like the PHP docs or the ones for VS code which are docs plus guides.
All your other points are fine critiques. I'll chalk the other complaints up as a matter of opinion
You’re either hiring developers from countries where $100 is a lot of money, or you expect them to only open Sublime Text once a year. Don’t be stingy—$100 is a steal when it’s the primary tool for nearly every developer. You probably spend that much (or more) on a weekend outing with your partner or friends.
I liked sublime text, but 65$ per year you can get the jet brain ide you need and it already includes most things you need and depends not on plugins from third party.
I'm curious where you're seeing jet brains subscriptions for $65 per year? Only RustRover and WebStorm seem to be somewhat close, with the rest being significantly more expensive.
I often see downvotes when people criticise ST's pricing, but I mostly agree with the detractors - the price always seems to be just a few bucks over the magical limit I'd be willing to pay.
Tech workers often spend $100 or more on a fancy meal with friends in a single night—I've definitely done that more than once. So paying $100 for a software license that I’ll be using almost every hour of the workday, and even more when working on personal projects, feels like a bargain.
I do wonder why it is that way though, because you're right, I've balked at the cost of software before, but had no issue in spending an order of magnitude more money on a flight to SF to meet up with other developers.
probably because there's a free OSS equivalent to most software.
The free equivalent to meeting up with friends/developers is a zoom call, and those suck.
Unless they back track on his statements convincingly, I too am shopping for alternatives. Very sad, this is the one service I didn't expect to be caught up in US politics like this.
FWIW, I will no longer be a customer of any company where I am aware that they financially or politically support the current regime. That especially includes local service providers.
Sure, I'm trying! I don't even care about supporting or not supporting a specific political party or side. I just don't want to support oligarchy. I don't want to do business with companies that are participating in politics.
Also, email is the most critical service most of us use, it is very important to know your email provider isn't supportive of a political regime, specially when that regime is using data collection for retribution, deportations, firings,etc..
Delaware incorporation is the norm, but for anyone who cares about dragnet surveillance, the state of incorporation is important, as well as the country.
Proton also does end-to-end encrypted email and supposedly, your emails are never stored decrypted, they are decrypted in your browser and in ingress/egress out of their environment. They're also hosting in switzerland.
That said, like many, I also am looking for an alternative. I pay them too much to not care about their CEO's political commentary.
end-to-end encryption? yes, if both users are on Proton - but don't call it email then.
Storing encrypted makes only sense when keys are not in their hands. Plaintext password enters their system on each login which means they can have your decryption key at any point if needed.
if they use the email/smtp protocol then it's email.
plaintext password does not enter their system. For example I still have to enter a second password for the in-browser decryption (although these days they use the same password). Most of security feels like theatrics, but small measures that add difficulty for a potential threat actor add up.
I think you are misreading my comment: they are the threat actor themselves, tricking users in believing they are better off via Proton.
SMTP does not encrypt messages and they arrive at Proton's inbound relays unencrypted, are scanned in plaintext for spam etc. At this point they can Bcc anything to another relay/account and keep a copy of all inbound messages BEFORE anything gets encrypted.
Access to historical messages? One line of code for logging, and let's not forget GPG does not encrypt the metadata which is readily available. How about FTS indexes, are they also decrypted on the fly in the browser?
Email is complex and not many have the patience to understand the monster behind, but lying about it, as Proton does - I find it just insulting to our profession.
Also "Swiss neutral", this is even more offending. Swiss execute US orders regularly.
Crypto AG was also based in Switzerland - that by itself mattered very little because it was owned by the CIA and the West Germany Intelligence service.
they're very protective about giving foreign states/entities access to information stored by swizz companies. It's not just for banking. As an american,any country not part of the five-eyes coalition and also not a hostile country is great. Not that I have anything to hide, I just want to support a culture of privacy.
A law without consequence is just a really nice guideline. The bill of rights is one of those guidelines.
A fundamental flaw of the US constitution is its failure to mandate congress to pass laws that levy consequence upon those who violate it.
"oops, we'll stop" is not punishment or consequence.
Furthermore, it is the failure of judicial system and the US legal community at large to not implicitly hold any government employee or official (elected or otherwise) who violates any part of the constitution as an illegitimate agent of the government. To explain what I mean, if an FBI agent or employee participated in a warrantless search, upon that proof, any work they touched should be considered unacceptable. any legal case built on their work should be tossed out of court and any convicts should be released who were their victims. Any president that directs others to violate the constitution, implicitly, just resigned from office (after a legal due process where such violation is proved in court of course.)
They've rendered the most fundamental laws that guarantee rights to the people and limit the government's authority, a toothless guideline. So they can bend it to suit their interests. ("They" are the ruling class, against whom the constitution was drafted to begin with)
I feel like mandating a punishment (i'm making some assumptions on that idea here) would be it's own problem.
Let's say a given private or public organization makes a bad choice. What is the punishment? The guy who flipped the switch?
Dealing the whole topic of misguided or poorly sized punishments with every law seems like it would be a huge hassle. Not unlike mandatory minimums or even just fine ranges that apply reasonably to one scenario, but not at all to others.
> Let's say a given private or public organization makes a bad choice. What is the punishment? The guy who flipped the switch?
In the military, orders which tell somebody to break the law aren't legal orders, and soldiers can be punished for following them (importantly, this does not preclude also punishing whoever gave the illegal orders!) Soldiers have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. So should bureaucrats.
This is just a polite fiction and no one is ever punished for giving illegal orders or for following them. Bloody Sunday resulted in absolutely no consequences for 1 Para. Tiger Force had illegal orders as their priority, were investigated and found guilty, and then absolutely nothing happened. The My Lai massacre resulted in a slap on the wrist for one guy.
You're wrong. There are some high profile cases where the system breaks down, but there are thousands times more situations that you've never heard about because everything gets done by the book and it never becomes a public outrage.
As of right now the punishment is a warning that if the behavior is repeated the warning will also be. There has to be a middle ground here, difficulty of enforcement can't be the reason to eliminate enforcement entirely.
most of the bill of right amendments are for the government. But let's take the 14th amendment that bars slavery, congress should be mandated to pass laws that punish slave owners. For your specific example, when a company violates the law (e.g.: someone dies) the executives in charge or rogue employees who acted on their own are punished, that is how the law works already.
I was commenting specifically about the bill of rights in the constitution,not laws in general.
>A law without consequence is just a really nice guideline.
Laws are guidelines even with consequences involved; you can't forcefully prevent someone from doing something with a piece of paper that has some ink on it.
The courts might throw out evidence based on an illegal warrant or lack thereof, the officers involved might be punished. But in the moment the officers can collect the "evidence" and no piece of paper can do a single thing about it, especially if consequences are stipulated but they are fine with getting them.
They became the ruling class after gaining independence from England's ruling class, so at the time of its draft they were trying to become a ruling class. Things like equality of the law, free speech, anti-search-and-seizure all helped them avoid England's tyranny.
The constitution was drafted at a time where there was an honor-based system of society. Dishonor, shame and society's distaste for it was the punishment for violating core principles like the bill of rights. But we no longer live in that society.
The federal government is one of enumerated powers; there is no limit to the things it’s not allowed to do. It would be an unending task to come up with punishments for the things they are forbidden from doing.
The bill of rights was a huge mistake, for exactly the reason foreseen at the time of its passing: it creates massive confusion that the people only have some limited set of rights.
>it creates massive confusion that the people have some limited set of rights.
Governance in the US is derived first and foremost from the People, State governments are delegated certain powers from the People, and the Federal government is delegated certain powers from the States.
Furthermore, the powers that first and foremost rest with the People are understood to be granted by their Creator (who this Creator is specifically is not relevant, though it is generally assumed to be God, see "In God We Trust"). The Constitution and Declaration of Independence merely outline guarantees for those powers, no powers are explicitly granted by those documents because those powers already exist.
So you are patently wrong. Not only do the People "have some limited set of rights", they have all the rights. The State and Federal governments exist at the pleasure of the People.
The bill of rights limits the power of the Legislative branch (Congress). It says that Congress shall pass no law in violation of certain rights of the people. It charges the Judicial branch with determining which laws those might be.
It doesn't protect the people from the Judicial (Supreme Court) or Executive (police) branches. For example; where you're interpreting certain amendments to mean that police can't search you unreasonably, you've misunderstood. Congress shall pass no law that says the police can search you unreasonably.
It's presumed that the Judicial and Executive branches, by way of that restriction on Congress, won't be able to violate those rights since the law won't be on their side.
The last thing you want is a government where the judges punish congressmen, elected by the people, for passing laws. Remember, we didn't elect the judges or the policemen. We elected the congressmen. That's our only access to shape our government.
Sadly, too many of us don't understand how our government works.
You're missing my point, it prohibits congress from passing laws, but it does not force congress to punish themselves, the executive branch or the judicial branch when a violation occurs. "don't do it" is not a law, "don't do it, or else..." is a law. in other words,it prohibits actions before the fact, but there is no consequence to violating it after the fact, other than reversal where possible.
They thought of your point when they wrote the Constitution. Giving any branch the power of punishment over any other branch implies control that forces the alignment of interests between branches. Truly countless examples of tyranny under those conditions.
The whole point is that Congress can fearlessly pass laws that the judicial branch can piss on and the executive branch can choose to ignore. That gives Congress an incentive to pass decent laws while protecting them from the tyrannical overreach of say, a militant dictator, or a self serving judge.
If you meant for a branch to punish its own, there are indeed consequences for upsetting Congress as a congressman, the Justices as a justice, and the federal government as an agent or serviceman. Plenty of people have received harsh penalties. It's really not uncommon.
It can run in your browser too.The electron part isn't the bloat but the web part. Web devs keep using framework on top of frameworks and the bloat is endless. Lack of good native UX kits forces devs to use web-based kits. Qt has a nice idea with qml but aside from some limitations, it is mostly C++ (yes, pyqt,etc.. exist).
Native UI kits should be able to do better than web-based kits. But I suspect just as with the web, the problem is consistency. The one thing the web does right is deliver consistent UI experience across various hardware with less dev time. It all comes down to which method has least amounts of friction for devs? Large tech companies spent a lot of time and money in dev tooling for their web services, so web based approaches to solve problems inherently have to be taken for even trivial apps (not that teams is one).
Open source native UX kits that work consistently across platforms and languages would solve much of this. Unfortunately, the open source community is stuck on polishing gtk and qt.
Not just consistency. Microsoft themselves don't have a modern, stable UI toolkit anymore. Linux is a mess. Only MacOS have something decent.
Then there is the fact that with native you need separate native app devs, familiar with tooling and environment, cause they totally different, so costs balloon. A lot. Not to mention a difficulty of hiring, compared to Electron.
There are practical reasons why Electron won, people are just ignorant of those reasons. If they poured their hate into solving the problem instead, we might have something decent already. But it's easier to complain. So here we are.
Personally, I'm annoyed, but understand why it is like it is.
Same here. The write once run everywhere eventually did won but that was the web. And comparatively speaking, JVM is so much better today than it was 20 years ago.
I sometimes wonder if Chromium actually do any specific optimisation for Electrons related usage.
I don't think it was Java itself, but many operating systems simply had a much stronger set of UX that was cohesively being followed.
Yet here we are, in an era where you can encounter multiple choices and you don't know whether it's a single select versus a multi-select tick box. And then there's something with a boolean state, and it's not clear which color means it's currently active. Then you hit alt-F for the File menu order to quit your browser in frustration, but the web page blocks you because it has decided that means that you're going to "Favorite" whatever you're looking at.
> The electron part isn't the bloat but the web part.
The bloat part is the bloat. Web apps can made to be perfectly performant if you are diligent, and native apps can be made to be bloated and slow if you're not.
>But I suspect just as with the web, the problem is consistency.
That is indeed the "problem" at its core. People are lazy, operating systems aren't consistent enough.
Operating systems came about to abstract all the differences of countless hardware away, but that is no longer good enough. Now people want to abstract away that abstraction: Chrome.
Chrome is the abstraction layer to Windows, MacOS, iOS, Linux, Android, BSD, C++, HTML, PHP, Ruby, Rust, Python, desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and all the other things. You develop for Chrome and everyone uses Chrome and everyone on both sides gets the same thing for a singular effort.
If I were to step away from all I know and care about computers and see as an uncaring man, I have to admit: It makes perfect sense. Fuck all that noise. Code for Chrome and use by Chrome. The world can't be simpler.
A 49% employee, 49% customer (b2b or subscription), and 2% CEO/CFO model seems better for a long-term sustainable company, especially for companies providing critical services like Mozilla, Proton, Chrome (if it were divested),etc..
That aside, I think it's important to codify into the incorporation charter or a company as well as share holder agreements that the company will never go public. Or perhaps have a clause that forces dissolution of the company and sell of assets if an IPO ever went through. It makes sense for some companies to be publicly traded but if your intent with a company is to do the public, your employees or customers good, instead of a pure profit play, then even the possibility of an IPO is cancerous.
it's not the same data or data quality. the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops). What russia is doing through their trollfarms, china is doing through tiktok.
> the concern isn't just data collection but manipulation of the american public (psyops).
I don't buy it. If that were actually the concern, we would be talking about banning Facebook and X for manipulating Americans to vote against their own interests and hand over more power & money to the platforms' owners. Facebook has done way, way, way, way more harm to America and Americans than Tiktok ever did. The Tiktok ban is an illegitimate handout to America's oligarchs to protect them from having to compete. It's nothing to do with protecting Americans from manipulation.
Well FB is American. Even though I and many people agree FB is also a problem, I think it’s pretty clear why those in Washington are more okay with an American company that they have some power over and also should ostensibly care for America versus a company that is ostensibly beholden to an adversary. (To be clear, I don’t think FB cares about America.)
I don’t really see why it’s hard to see the reasoning behind the ban even if one disagrees with it.
Take it to an extreme, imagine there were zero American social media companies in our modern world where most people get there news from social media. That obviously would be a huge security risk, having one’s population’s news being controlled exclusively by foreign states.
American social media is banned in China and if used against americans by its leadership, it would be a domestic threat not a foreign threat. Twitter was bought by Elon and used to influence an election successfully. if we're honest in this discussion, we shouldn't pretend the threat isn't real. Foreign companies get banned from owning american companies all the time. Biden just banned US steel's takeover by a japanese company.
You know what scares me? how the actual majority on HN is critical of the tiktok ban despite all what I have just said being obvious things a critical thinker can deduce. I'm concerned the influence of tiktok (foreign actors) is already too pervasive and damaging. You all should know the US by any historical metrics is at the precipice of a civil war as it is.
I'm not sure that's true, and even if it was, the law as passed requires American companies to not serve the app from their app stores, which is a restriction of American company speech.
I keep hearing about a skills gap in the US for fabs, what skills or jobs are actually suffering from this? people with masters in nanotech, compeng, EE?
Perhaps there is a skill gap because nobody actually knows there is a demand? I have no idea what to recommend to people who are trying to choose a college degree.
With my industry in infosec, at least there are certifications one can take, even proper masters degrees these days. In my experience, there is no skills gap in cybersec, despite what CEO's and linkedin-types' sentiment. They just don't want to pay market price for skilled talent. "skills gap" has meant "we need more talent so we can pay less", there is no actual shortage of people who can do the jobs adequately.
Is it different for chip fabrication? and if so, how can regular people work/study to obtain these skills? If I, having read HN for years and reading about the fab process have no clue, how can regular people who don't visit HN?
If you all can help me answer this, I'll try to recruit a few people into pursuing the right career to help meet this demand.
You all understand that this is to appease MAGA/trump right?
So what? well, are you not terrified? if they preemptively are going to such lengths to appease the racist MAGA crowd, are you not afraid of what they will do with all the data they collect and with the amount of dependency we have on tech?
Please be afraid. IDK, maybe watch star wars or something, the piece about how fear leads to anger, then hatred then violence should make you afraid. Have you ever seen CEOs an tech leaders line up to brown-nose a president before? what happens when he asks them to do even worse?
I don't find that to be true and I find your own rationale to be its own sort of performative moralism. Many normal people feel this way and it isn't to appease MAGA or Trump or whatever, including myself and many people I know who have been and/or are lifelong leftists. It is not impossible or even unlikely that people in higher positions developed these feelings on their own accord. I'm not saying your statement is always untrue, but it denies the people you're writing about much agency.
I think that what's happening is that people on all levels are now more comfortable in saying what they actually think or believe rather than saying things to avoid busting arbitrary social rules.
this has nothing to do with leftism or rightism. MAGA is not right-wing,they're fascist and authoritarian.
paulg has a reliable pattern of history, where he echoes the current trends in the tech company leadership circle. him, altman, musk, bezos,etc.. they run in the same circles. I am not even disagreeing with his sentiment of being against performative morality or equality, people on all sides of politics have been saying that for decades! the framing of anti-racist and anti-fascist people as "woke" and hijacking that conversation as a culture war item where any attempt to criticize racist and fascist systems and sentiment is classified as "woke" (they tried the term "SJW" a few years prior to "woke") is what is happening here, and it is very obvious.
You cannot plead ignorance on this!
This isn't about arbitrary social rules or saying "colored people" vs "people of color" or b.s. like that. that sort of mis-framing is mis-direction, straw-man reasoning. Someone tells you "hey, pay minorities a fair wage" and responding with "I can't call them _____, that's woke and political correctness", how sickening it is when the tech world shows its hypocrisy. Better to have performative morality many times over than willfully ignorant tolerance of hatred and prejudice. Use the terms "DEI" and "woke" in any context other than their original intended context and you're either a damn racist or an enabler.
I hope these people read this, I for one would be very vocal for calling them out and shaming them after they've drunk from the poisoned chalice of trump.
reply