TextMate is a versatile plain text editor with a unique and innovative feature set which caused it to win an Apple Design Award for Best Mac OS X Developer Tool in August Subcategory: Word Processing Software. It provides users with innovative abstractions to support declarative customizations which are at once transparent and flexible. Though its users are mostly programmers, and its basic feature set may require more learning than simpler graphical editors, TextMate is much easier to customize than many other text editors. Aug 23, · TextMate Overview. TextMate is there to help you out for writing your code. This app makes coding much easier on your Windows, Mac, and Linux Operating System. It has great features with comes preloaded. Few are Syntax highlighting, Multiple Tabs, and Search and Replace are some of the salient features of this bwujkf.me: Aiza Aly.
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. You're defending the use of marketing terms. Quit that immediately -- do NOT consider this request optional.
The list of problems with this article is extensive: This is pure marketing bullshit and opinioneering. I have no way of confirming that this is true. Wikipedia is not here to project opinions. This sort of characterization is not what Wikipedia is here to push. Compared to what? Who is qualified to make this measurement? Instead of that, use absolute dates. Oh really. Proof please! If another editor comes along or perhaps has already and impelement all the same features Again, it's pure marketing bullshit.
Define "easy". You can't; it's quite like trying to define a word like "simple" Don't talk to the readers. This isn't encyclopedic tone. Two problems: 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". This is a matter of opinion. If this simplification was a design goal of Textmate, say that it was a design goal. 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. It will stay on there until then. Don't fight this -- do the work, or leave it alone. 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. 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.
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. The actual list of limitations of TextMate is infinite. No, really, it is. 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? 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.
Well this was certainly exasperating I'm sure. Sorry you had to deal with that. Though I would have to point out that a small team both were single-man teams for most of their lives can only accomplish so much, and I would say that ST's development has greatly outpaced TextMate's.
Also I think ST has somebody working full-time on package management stuff now, not sure. If you want to make software, get your own ideas. Copying something is a lot easier than inventing it for yourself, which requires doing real research. If you try ripping off large companies, you run the risk of getting sued.
But if you do it to a 1-person company, you can generally get away with it. Still scummy. Same is true of many types of unethical shortcuts in the world. I'm not a fan of this argument. We all build upon the work of those who came before us, and usually even the most blatant rip-offs add something. I'd even argue the opposite: