On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:45:04AM +0900, David V. wrote:
Chad P. wrote:
Considering that, like E-TextEditor, a Linux/BSD version would probably
not be an actual port of TextMate.
Actually, that’s how I did in fact read Jonas H.'s wishful thinking.
Y’know, this has been bothering me for a bit, so I decided to go back
and read the thread from the beginning again. If you do so as well, you
may notice that I was the first person in this thread to suggest a Linux
or FreeBSD version of the software. While I sloppily used the word
“port” when what I meant was “clone”, the fact that I brought it up in
the first place might be an indicator that I know what subject is under
discussion. Please refrain from assigning my wishful thinking to
others, then using that mistake to tell me I’m wrong.
On 2/24/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
The “ostensibly” bit is the important part of your statement: yes, it’s
entirely possible to write Qt applications without KDE libraries, but so
rare as to be thoroughly remarkable – especially since I haven’t seen a
credible app yet that uses Qt but not KDE libraries. The potential for
quackle.org
Fast becoming the standard companion for the serious scrabble player -
is that credible enough? 
martin
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 06:35:26PM +0900, Xavier N. wrote:
TextMate is a commercial product for the Mac, that is a legitimate
choice made by his author.
If you think some sort of clone would be good in a different
platform, GUI toolkit, whatever, go launch an open source project and
start programming, good luck.
Please stop this thread.
I haven’t said anything on the subject for about 19 hours before you
posted this. Perhaps you should have said that to the guy that posted
after me, rather than to me, just because you don’t like my position.
On Feb 23, 7:15 pm, Craig B. [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
I downloaded it 6? months ago and
found it to be useless, buggy crap… and for something that he was
offering (still is) as a 30-day trial/$40 to buy beta (pre alpha)
version.
FWIW, the author has changed the licensing so that the trial is no
longer 30 days (despite what the front page says), instead lasting as
long as the program is still in beta. [1]
Actually it kinda ticked me off the way he talked it up and
got (what seemed to me at the time) some good buzz about his editor
that he squandered by not having something that was ready for release
Definitely still a beta app and, after having played with it for a few
hours, certainly not (currently) worthy of the moniker “TextMate for
Windows”. No folding, no word completion, no adjustable or visual wrap
column, no function popup, can’t use bold versions of bitmap
fonts…and so on.
Still, it’s early on, and holds promise for some features not in
TextMate (like collaboration and document versioning). Now that it’s
free for you to help improve it, I encourage you (if you want a
TextMate-like editor for Windows) to try it out and report bugs and
features you desire.
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Chris G. wrote:
It’s also a good deal slower than TextWrangler at opening large text
files (say, over 8 MB).
Having said that, it’s still the only text editor I use. It’s a
fantastic piece of software. I wouldn’t mind seeing Find in Project
speeded up in the next version, though. 
Chris, try removing the logs folder reference from your TextMate
project.
FWIW, about the only thing I miss from BBEdit is that BBEdit’s text
editing felt qualitatively snappier.