From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Macintosh task force (marked as Low-importance).

Modifying shortcuts[edit]

My informationt that there's no easy way to modify TM's shourcuts and behaviour of built-in functions has been removed. I disagree - I've asked about things like indentation using Tab key or prefilling search with selected text on Cmd+F - the answer was that these things can't be done and I should stick to built-in shortcuts. --unsigned comment by user:

done, thx —remark left by user: upon removing this comment

I'm adding the comment above back in as wikipedia values keeping discussions around. This text was added to the "limitations" section to address the concern noted above:

"Because TextMate is not tightly coupled to a scripting language, as Emacs is to elisp, it is impossible for users to have complete control over the behavior of some built-in commands such as those which indent sections of text or those which move columns around; however, almost every useful action can be accomplished with TextMate's macros and commands."

jacobolus (t) 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right-to-left support[edit]

A note was added by an anonymous user that (s)he could get right-to-left languages working in TextMate. As the TextMate developer has said that this doesn't work, I took the claim out, but I would like to hear more if in fact that is the case. --jacobolus (t) 23:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that right-to-left support will be in the 2.0 release which is directed as a Leopard only release. It will use native APIs that can utilise localised character sets. Nighty5 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dragging Text[edit]

Does TextMate support dragging text? I know e (the Windows port of TextMate) does not, but e doesn't support code folding, either. — Brianary 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like almost all Mac applications, TextMate supports the dragging of text. --jacobolus (t) 10:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplicity and elegance[edit]

> the point of adding a GUI is not to match "look and feel".

I have not claimed that at all. The sentence, as it is now, does not assert that all a text editor needs to make it "simple and ellegant" is a GUI, but that it is the case with a macintosh GUI only. It also doesnt state that the editor is "simple and elegant", but that its just the Macintosh GUI that makes it that way.

> The point is that the GUI *is* simpler for users to navigate than a purely textual interface.

As I said, I have not disputed that.

> "Elegance" is a bit harder to quantify, as it is very subjective, but again,

So it should not be mentioned in a general description of a text editor.

> if you like, I can give you dozens of quotes about the elegance of the Macintosh, especially as compared to textual interfaces.

And I can on the other side give you dozens of dozens of articles statin the contrary. This issue _IS_ a matter of the point of view, so it should be described more neutrally. --Rhun 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then write a better sentence. Just swapping out a couple of words is a cop out, and doesn't cut it. --jacobolus (t) 12:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I also don't have the time to exchange the wording until you nod it through graciously. You either can write that any GUI makes a text editor "simple and elegant" (which we both know isn't the case, and vim and emacs both are GUI editors nowadays) or leave it away, like you have done now. Just building on a specific gui library doesnt make a program "simple and elegant" (which then would also logically apply to the mac ports of vim and emacs, and any other Mac editor under the sun). --Rhun 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, you completely miss the point of TextMate. Perhaps you haven't used it? Anyway, the idea is to bring both the customization and power that come from allowing users to program their editors, as well as the discoverability and interface simplicity of a GUI. This is a very different thing from putting vim inside Gvim, or whatever. It's not even comparable. But you're right. This really takes 3-4 sentences to truly explain why TextMate is more elegant than any other editor. I'll perhaps put in a better explanation sometime. I'm sorry that you aren't willing to put any thought into the sentence yourself. I think the introduction is much poorer for that sentence's removal. So it goes. --jacobolus (t) 12:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Steep" learning curve[edit]

Regarding my edit changing "its basic feature set has a steeper learning curve than simpler graphical editors" to "its basic feature set may require more learning...", which was subsequently undone by Jacobolus:

The reason "a steeper learning curve" is ambiguous is that it can be interpreted to mean two completely opposite things. Strictly speaking, a steep learning curve implies fast learning (the curve plots proficiency over time) and so is a good thing. But many (probably most) people think it means that something is hard to learn. Given this ambiguity, I think it's best to avoid the term altogether. Forlornturtle 10:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense then. I've only ever heard "steep learning curve" or "shallow learning curve" used to mean, respectively, hard to learn or easy to learn. Go ahead and make such a fix. The sentence could maybe even be rewritten to be a bit more specific; it's a bit hard to characterize such things in a way which is both informative and NPOV, as the difficulty to learn something is inherently subjective. Anyway, go ahead and put back that change if you want. --jacobolus (t) 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just advertising[edit]

It provides users with innovative abstractions to support declarative customizations which are at once transparent and flexible. What the hell does that give the reader, other than a vague plug for the product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bacrito (talkcontribs) 12:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Well, the intent is to be a very short summary, for the purposes of an introduction. The rest of the article I think does a reasonable job of explaining that sentence. If you have an alternative phrasing, suggest away. --jacobolus (t) 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Four months have gone by and the offending text is still there. I've put an {{advert}} tag on the article, because there are several places where non-neutral, advertising language is used. -/- Warren 14:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Gimme a break. Please suggest an alternative phrasing which adequately summarizes the article. To help you understand, I'll break down that sentence: innovative = new ideas, not previously used in text editors; abstractions = generalized tools which can solve many problems rather than being narrowly focused on a single problem; declarative = code which describes the state of something, rather than a procedure for it, see declarative programming for details; customizations = the user can mix and match these abstractions himself, in a user-specific way; transparent = these are much clearer and more understandable than the customization tools in other editors such as emacs or vim; flexible = a broad variety of specific tools can be built by the user, from these more general abstractions. Then the whole rest of the article backs up those claims with specifics. I'm removing your notice, because I believe it to be inappropriate. But feel free to suggest alternatives. I'm all ears. --jacobolus (t) 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Bull. Fucking. Shit. You're defending the use of marketing terms. Quit that immediately -- do NOT consider this request optional. "Innovative" is extremely subjective, an inherently POV term, and is peacock-wording to boot. Everything else you're saying is not backed by reliable sources, and is essentially YOUR OPINION, the expression of which is expressly disallowed in Wikipedia articles.
The list of problems with this article is extensive:
* "On the other hand, many raved about its unique features" is backed up by a reference to some random person's blog, who doesn't "rave" about Textmate's "unique features".
* "much easier to customize than other text edtiors" is not backed up by any reference. This is pure marketing bullshit and opinioneering. I have no way of confirming that this is true. Wikipedia is not here to project opinions.
* "after only five months in development"; "only" is a subjective measurement; it makes it sound like this is some sort of impressive accomplishment. This sort of characterization is not what Wikipedia is here to push.
* "continuing to develop at a rapid rate"; same problem. Rapid? Compared to what? Who is qualified to make this measurement?
* Using the word "recently" is bad, too. Instead of that, use absolute dates.
* "features which set it apart from other editors". Oh really. Proof please! If another editor comes along (or perhaps has already) and impelement all the same features... how would a statement like this continue to be true? Again, it's pure marketing bullshit.
* "allows users to easily create their own". Easily? Compared to what? Define "easy". You can't; it's quite like trying to define a word like "simple"... some people think simple means "small", whereas others think it means "uncomplicated", and these two concepts are quite different.
* "This scope tells us that we are looking". Don't talk to the readers. This isn't encyclopedic tone.
* "TextMate “snippets” are useful snippets of text". Two problems: "snippets are snippets" == saying nothing. The word "Useful", like easy and only, is subjective. A snippet could be completely useless to a user, too, so it should not, by encyclopedic definition, be "useful".
* "the combination of tab triggers and snippets greatly eases coding in verbose languages". This is a matter of opinion. If this simplification was a design goal of Textmate, say that it was a design goal.
* The "Limitations" section, by the way, has no sources. Is any of this stuff actually true? If I don't have a Mac with Textmate, how am I supposed to be able to verify this against a reliable source?
And this covers about half of the issues I see with the article. Free the article of the bullshit marketing rah-rah, and you can then remove the {{advert}} template from the article. It will stay on there until then. Don't fight this -- do the work, or leave it alone. -/- Warren 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Warren, even though this is by now +10 years old; wikipedia should strive to be as objective and possible. It's ok to mention facts and point these out in a positive but still objective manner, but promo and neither hidden promo, should not be used. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk)

Linking to interview on my blog[edit]

What do folks think about adding a link to this interview in the external links section:

The interview was performed by me. --Johnjosephbachir (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. :) --jacobolus (t) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "Limitations" section[edit]

Hi. Courtesy warning... I intend to remove the "Limitations" section of the article. I'll explain my rationale for why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

  1. The actual list of limitations of TextMate is infinite. No, really, it is. When do you stop listing things a product *cannot* do?
  2. If we did agree that a space-limited list of limitations is appropriate for an encyclopedia, then we'd have to decide what arbitrary subset of limitations we were going to include. What's the criteria? A mention of the limitation in popular press? In a reliable source's review of the product? From the product's own literature? (user forums are not acceptable and citing a primary source like TextMate's literature is not a good practice in general)
  3. Since this is evolving software, there is a high likelihood that we publish a limitation but that limitation gets removed soon after or just muddled in details like "limitation of versions 1.5.04 through 1.5.09 but removed in Preview or Alpha release"
  4. Comparison articles already exist that, I think, put TextMate's limitations in a useful context. e.g. Comparison_of_text_editors#Mac-only_text_editors
  5. A limitations section is effectively a section of criticisms, and this is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
  6. The section is a magnet for biased and POV edits. It's easy to hate and bias an article when the pool of materian (limitations) is unlimited.

Thanks for listening. If anyone feels strongly that some limitations of TextMate need to be in the article, then those notable limitations can be put into the regular part of the article along with a reliable source. --Ds13 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular pro or con opinion; I think that it should be consistent either way. Either there are limitations mentioned by every editor, or it should be by none, simply because otherwise bias kicks in and things become less objective as a whole, since you may have 2 out of 10 editors with "limitations" but the other 8 none. What could perhaps be a compromise would be an OBJECTIVE table of features. This is also difficult but doable. 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Activity of the Project?[edit]

It is now 2017; last release seems 5 years ago. Is the project still alive? 2A02:8388:1640:9D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is now an open source project, which makes the concept of "release" somewhat squishy. The github rep [1] last commit date is Oct 3, 2017 (as of Oct 27) so it's not super active, but still being developed.