Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sublime Text"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Evaluation
imported>Qazaaq |
imported>Kicoax |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I see what you mean but really product licensing and pricing are not relevant to making one text editor or another work with papyrus scripting. Each text editor page should be laser focused on how they can be used to develop mods for Fallout 4. The editor descriptions come off as a sales pitch with a very blatant bias to Atom. I still agree with your point about misrepresenting the reality of the Sublime Text license though. The best course of action may be to not mention pricing or licensing at all on any text editor page, and move that kind of information to the text editor category. Great start on a comparison table there too.--[[User:Scrivener07|Scrivener07]] ([[User talk:Scrivener07|talk]]) 2016-06-23T19:23:22 (EDT) | I see what you mean but really product licensing and pricing are not relevant to making one text editor or another work with papyrus scripting. Each text editor page should be laser focused on how they can be used to develop mods for Fallout 4. The editor descriptions come off as a sales pitch with a very blatant bias to Atom. I still agree with your point about misrepresenting the reality of the Sublime Text license though. The best course of action may be to not mention pricing or licensing at all on any text editor page, and move that kind of information to the text editor category. Great start on a comparison table there too.--[[User:Scrivener07|Scrivener07]] ([[User talk:Scrivener07|talk]]) 2016-06-23T19:23:22 (EDT) | ||
No, but if we're directing people to software, they should definitely know if there are strings attached to it (costing money is a fairly big one). Atom may come off as a bias simply because it is objectively superior in nearly all aspects, minus speed (Sublime Text still '''definitely''' has the upper-hand there, though the gap has closed significantly since Atom first began as a project). I don't actually really have an inherent bias - I purchased Sublime Text 2 a couple of years ago. I jumped ship to Atom when ST3's development was frozen for what seemed like an eternity, though - and since then, Atom has caught up and surpassed it in many areas. It's more user-friendly (you basically never have to see a config file, unlike ST3 which barely has any config UI, for example). It's more flexible (though ST3 is pretty close). It's easier to extend and make packages for, and therefore its developer community is more active (Atom already has 4.5k packages, vs. ST's Package Control having 3.7k, despite being around much longer). Its package management is built-in and accessible through the main UI. It's fully open-source and anyone can contribute to it. And, most importantly (to me, anyways), its pace of development is much faster than ST3's has been. | |||
I feel like I'm getting horribly off-topic here, though. My point was that I wasn't really trying to dissuade people from using ST if they want to, but just to point out that it '''does''' cost money, which is definitely a huge factor in most peoples' usage. Using the evaluation version indefinitely is not cool. If you like Sublime Text, buy it. For most people, though, they'd rather use something free. Atom is the best alternative to ST3, since the feature set and general interactions are very similar. Atom was built from the beginning to essentially be a free, open-source version of Sublime Text. | |||
People aren't just checking the wiki to see how to make their current text editor work for Papyrus. I'm certain there's a large population that is coming to see which one they should use, as they're just starting out with scripting (especially since console mods are a thing now, and there's a brand new group of players being introduced to it). If you have anything to add to/expand upon the comparison table, please do so. --[[User:Gawdl3y|Gawdl3y]] ([[User talk:Gawdl3y|talk]]) 2016-06-23T22:39:21 (EDT) | |||