Why 2.0 is not Developed in the Open

I got a letter asking me why I didn’t use the 1.0 model for developing 2.0, that is, released 1.0 when it reached “usable” and then incrementally improved it.

There are a few reasons for this, but most essential is that with 2.0 a lot of my goals were stuff I had no idea how to do, much of this is internal features, for example looking at the core editor some of my goals here were:

  • Allow threaded operations in a transparent way, not having (threaded) parser, spell checker, save (to slow network mount) etc. need to know about buffer locks and similar.
  • Simple index-based API for buffer that is fully unicode aware including diacritics, combining marks, and provide scoped settings and the likes in a similarly easy fashion yet at the same time also support line-based indexing without pathetic running times and effecient batch access (search/replace, save, etc.).
  • Decoupled layout code based on an API which can support “complex” layouts yet allow efficient incremental updates.
  • Extend scope system to allow scopes to come from file’s location in file system and attributes associated with that location plus various other sources like SCM and general file state.
  • Allow general preferences to target specific files, folders, and projects.
  • Allow commands to run for events such as “document saved”, allow them to run w/o a document but also allow them to be run directly on files from the file browser.
  • Provide an abstraction for commands to allow toolbars/palettes, and unified key bindings — that is, introduce an abstract action like “build” that ⌘B might call in certain contexts, but have ⌘B be “bold” in a prose context.

It is only a subset but it should show that it is about data structures, algorithms, modularity, and “abstractions” plus some unification (like make the HTML preview be a command which is re-executed based on the new event system, let smart typing be based on (nested) snippets, etc.).

To realize this I felt it was necessary to start from scratch, and it has involved a lot of experimentation, rewriting, and it is why I didn’t feel like discussing progress in the open because I had no idea about how many of my ambitions would pan out. The program itself has been in a constant state of flux with essential stuff missing because my focus has initially been on all the stuff I didn’t know how to do, as I could always do the “easy” stuff later (and doing the easy stuff first just leads to rewriting it when new insights are gained).

All in all this has been a giant puzzle with a lot of pieces that needed to fall into place. When I did the last status blog post about “90% done” it was because I felt that the last piece of the puzzle had fallen into place — of course it is never so, but all the big unanswered questions have an answer, that doesn’t mean there isn’t still a lot of stuff to do before it is alpha ready, just that the road toward alpha is no longer filled with huge unknowns.

I know a lot of you want me to give some estimate about when the first alpha is out, but if you didn’t already read the software is hard essay then please go read it now! I can’t give any estimate I am able to fulfill, which makes the entire thing pointless and will just set me up for more negative comments.

What I can say is that the code base is nearing 50 KSLOC which in my book is a lot, I didn’t think 2.0 would be more than 30 KSLOC, but in comparison 1.x is almost 40 KSLOC (but with higher redundancy than 2.0).

I feel I should stress that I am not posting these “status posts” in an attempt of painting some picture of TM 2.0 being around the corner to increase sales or avoid having people jump ship. Please make your decisions about what software to use/buy/support based on released software, not what I or someone else writes about “the future” (which none of us can predict).

Hope that gives some more insight in what has been going on for the last few years. I know I aimed to describe some of the abstractions 2.0 will introduce, but the intent was to have someone else write about this which didn’t work out, and me writing blog posts is a serious drain on my resources, and right now I really just want to finish 2.0, I also feel much better about releasing software than writing about what I think the version I hope to release in maybe half a year should probably contain if all the stars align right…

Thank you all for your patience and support during this excercise.

107 Comments

  1. 06 Jan 2010 | # Onofre wrote…

    Happy New Year Allan. Keep up the spirit and don't bother what others are thinking. Follow your intuition.

  2. 06 Jan 2010 | # AndyH wrote…

    Thanks for the update, Allan.

  3. 06 Jan 2010 | # Monokai wrote…

    Take your time, and release when it's there. In the mean time, I'm still happily using Textmate for the entire developing flow of Monoslideshow.

  4. 06 Jan 2010 | # Felix wrote…

    I don't usually comment much on blogs, but I think this time it's worth it, if only to show you that beside the vocal naysayers, there are at least as many (but I think even a lot more) silent yaysayers :-) Anyway, take your time and release when you think it's ready, people who like TextMate will use it then, simple as that.

  5. 06 Jan 2010 | # Mike Czepiel wrote…

    TextMate 1.0 is still the best editor I've ever used. I'm certainly looking forward to such an ambitious 2.0 release someday. Thanks for the update and best of luck with the ongoing development.

  6. 06 Jan 2010 | # Alex Price wrote…

    I think TextMate 1.0 is still the best text editor on the Mac, looking forward to 2.0 whenever it arrives.

  7. 06 Jan 2010 | # Oli wrote…

    Thanks for the update and as developer myself I know how "users" can be! Just follow the path you choose!

    BTW: Sounds all so exicting. Can't wait, when can we get the alpha? :P

  8. 06 Jan 2010 | # donnacha | WordSkill wrote…

    Take your time on TextMate 2.0, but can you give us a definite release date for TextMate 3.0?

  9. 06 Jan 2010 | # Daniel wrote…

    Good things come to those who wait. Thank you for your hard work, once again. It's nice to hear from you from time to time — especially about 2.0. Until day X arrives, I can happily continue to do my daily work, as 1.0 is still state of the art / still the best tool availlable.

  10. 06 Jan 2010 | # Caio Chassot wrote…

    My biggest complaint with 1.x is that the drawer and tabs now look dated.

    So there, it's not Delicious Generation, but it's the only place I can bare to type in. (Well, and WriteRoom for emails. (hint hint tm full screen mode :))

  11. 06 Jan 2010 | # Joe wrote…

    Keep it up, Allan! I agree with all the positive sentiments above. Don't release it before it's ready or succumb to the regrettably common pressure to hype vapourware. 1.x is great and 2.x will be better, but only if you take the time to do it right, as you are clearly determined to do. And thanks for the occasional and insightful blog updates.

  12. 06 Jan 2010 | # Roger wrote…

    Textmate is one of the few apps I've not been worried about becoming abandonware – it's current release is the epitome of simple execution with excellent polish. The Project+ plugin is the only significant enhancement I've used to date.

    Keep up the great work Allan!

  13. 06 Jan 2010 | # Konsi wrote…

    Textmate 1.0 is still the best Editor for my needs. So why jump ships ;D

  14. 06 Jan 2010 | # long-time-user wrote…

    I think you need to relax a bit, Allan. The most visible commenters are the most visible but the rest of us are pretty well satisfied with textmate as-is.

    There's always stuff that could be better but please don't take our deafening silence to mean we're of similar mindset to the letter-writers.

    You put a perfectly functional program in maintenance mode while you worked on getting a successor program into perfectly-functional condition; this is far superior to the feature creep and bloat encroachment other programs succumb to, so good on you.

  15. 06 Jan 2010 | # Mike Dewar wrote…

    Keep up the good work Allan! Textmate (and maybe Omnigragffle) for me is THE reason to use OSX. I'll be ready and waiting with my credit card when 2.0 comes out. Don't stress about the naysaying!

  16. 06 Jan 2010 | # Carl wrote…

    Have you read the history of Duke Nukem Forever development on recent Wired magazine? Be careful, the development you're describing is pretty much what the were doing up until recently at 3D Realms…

  17. 06 Jan 2010 | # harald wrote…

    thanks for the status update, allan. it's nice to read something from time to time. if you say: you are working on it, than i'm always happy — doesn't matter of when it's finally done. i understand your points in this blog post and i can only say: you are on the right way ;-). best whishes for 2010 …

  18. 06 Jan 2010 | # Kim Korte wrote…

    We don't need TM 2.0 that urgently, because 1.x is already the best editor for Mac I know. Nevertheless I'm looking forward for some new features but for real, take your time!

  19. 06 Jan 2010 | # Erik wrote…

    I think it's fantastic that you have the courage (and means) to spend a couple of years working on a new version of Textmate.

    It must be a fantastic project for you, being able to start from scratch but with the knowledge of and experience of 1.0 under your belt.

    I'm using Textmate every day and it's the most wonderful piece of software I know, rivaling Mathematica in extensibility and power.

    I really have only one piece of advice and that is to post screenshots or screencasts every 8-10 weeks (but with comments closed!).

    This would keep your current users/customers a bit more in the loop about what's happening in the kitchen without the added burden (for you) of having to reply to comments on such postings.

    Even a 'silent' stream simple screenshots would do miracles to keep people from switching to Vim etc. Don't worry that certain features will not be in 2.0 even if they appeared in screenshots you posted. Artists also repaint parts of the canvas before it's finished.

    Best regards, Erik

  20. 06 Jan 2010 | # Alcides wrote…

    Just to point out that quite a few Textmate users are Mac Programmers (or other kind of programmers), so posting about the features and the process might get you some of the answers you need. And also inform us of the development and provide you with faster feedback.

  21. 06 Jan 2010 | # Jonathan wrote…

    TextMate 1.x is still the best text editor out there for me, so I'm completely happy to wait patiently for 2.0. I'm sure your hard work will pay off, but in the meantime I have no complaints.

  22. 06 Jan 2010 | # Jordan Graf wrote…

    It sounds awesome and I can't wait. Just watch out for the second system effect. Small and elegant and tight is a feature too…

  23. 06 Jan 2010 | # seyDoggy wrote…

    Allan, I can relate on many levels. Talking about good code doesn't write the code itself and people have to understand that.

    TM 1.x is all I need and TM 2 will just be the icing on the cake. Get 'er done when can and just make it the best damn thing ever. You can't change the haters so just ignore them.

    Happy New Year and all the best.

  24. 06 Jan 2010 | # Simon wrote…

    as long as its out before Duke Nukem Forever

  25. 06 Jan 2010 | # Mike Cohen wrote…

    The one feature I MUST have is a built-in FTP/SFTP client. That's why I went back to BBEdit & I couldn't switch 100% unless TextMate has that feature.

  26. 06 Jan 2010 | # Dave Salazar wrote…

    Why don't you find a partner or get consulting for some of the things you are having trouble with?

  27. 06 Jan 2010 | # lcmtwn wrote…

    Thanks for the update, Allan.

  28. 06 Jan 2010 | # Peter Cooper wrote…

    @Caio Chassot: You need the "MissingDrawer" plugin for TextMate. It integrates the project/file view into the main TextMate window and looks awesome. Screenshot and download here.

  29. 06 Jan 2010 | # dude wrote…

    The moral of this story: NEVER start from scratch.

  30. 06 Jan 2010 | # Scott Ullrich wrote…

    Take your time, do it right. 1.0 is still the best Text editor out there and I enjoy using it daily. Looking forward to 2.0 but I am in no hurry. :)

  31. 06 Jan 2010 | # jL wrote…

    Hi Allan. I've written you a few times in the past, encouraging you to post to the Macromates blog more often. I'm glad to see this post, if simply for the fact that it's an assurance you're there, and that you're thinking about your customers.

    That having been said, I dare say you have the full support of the TM community to do the 2.0 job "right."

    Based on what you've delivered in the 1.x line, it's clear to me that you have an excellent understanding about what is valuable in a developer's text editor.

    And believe me, I'd gotten impatient and did in fact attempt to switch to Coda or Eclipse… but in the end, I'd found that nothing I'd tried sucks less than TM 1.x. ;-p

    While it would seem to me that your ambitions for 2.0 were simply too many for a single release (business-wise, I could argue for the value of an interim release that brought in a fresh round of income ;-)), now that they're already seemingly so far along in development, it is what it is.

    In any case, it's great to hear all this, and eagerly await the mythic 2.0. Good luck with the rest of the run to alpha!

  32. 06 Jan 2010 | # Allan Odgaard wrote…

    Carl: Yes, I read that story, and sure it is reminiscent always chasing a better product/implementation/whatever, which is a bad property when you never get around to shipping anything.

    Jordan Graf: My goals are to still provide a very minimal core, just allow more ways to customize it, and unify some of the current “hardcoded” features, for example both column typing and “append to each line in selection” I consider “hardcoded” in 1.x where 2.0 has generalized support for multiple carets / discontinuous selections which enable these things and a lot more — so I consider this pretty much the opposite of the second-system effect in the way I am actually trying to create a “smaller” system than the original by introducing some better abstractions/flexibility and thus have it able to do more.

    dude: All programs were initially written from scratch.

    Everyone else: Thanks a lot for your positive comments, I’ll try not to let it go to my head ;)

  33. 06 Jan 2010 | # Nicholas Vahalik wrote…

    I, too, agree that TextMate 1.0 is still the best editor out there. TextMate has changed the way I work in a very positive way. TextMate 2 will be worth the wait!

  34. 06 Jan 2010 | # charles wrote…

    Awesome, thanks for the update, I'll keep using TM 1.x and can easily wait much longer without feeling the need to switch to any other software.

    My only recommandation would be: charge for the update when it's there!

  35. 06 Jan 2010 | # GG wrote…

    If people are "switching to" some other editor, unless it's vim, they're not really using TM as it was meant to. There simply is no other editor that does what TM does, or as well. The extensibility and customizability is entirely what makes TM stand out among any other editor.

    Allan, I'd take a page from Blizzard and Id Software and just say it will be released "when it's done". It's not like there are any glaring issues with 1.0 that would make people need something fixed. People who whine about 2.0 release dates just have entitlement problems.

  36. 06 Jan 2010 | # Tawheed Kader wrote…

    There is really no rush, TM more than meets my needs and is a pleasure to work with. Take your time, don't Fc up a great product.

  37. 06 Jan 2010 | # Ryan Bates wrote…

    Thanks for the update Allan. It helps to know that TextMate 2 is still strong in development. To me that is more important than having a set release date. Many of us are programmers and know how difficult it is to estimate release dates.

    I know you dislike writing and the time it takes, so here's an idea. Maybe there is some other way to show your activity on the project without writing? Perhaps a simple LOC counter or commit messages. Seeing it go up (or down) would at least indicate activity without revealing anything. Also public accountability can be an awesome motivator in getting things done. Just a thought.

  38. 06 Jan 2010 | # Aaron wrote…

    Open source the software. Let the community help you out. A single developer trying to do everything, why?

  39. 06 Jan 2010 | # Sam Granieri wrote…

    Allan, take your time and do it right. Just keep us in the loop on your progress… A screenshot wouldn't hurt either :)

  40. 06 Jan 2010 | # Morgan Roderick wrote…

    Nice with a little update and some insight into what kind of problems you're tackling.

    I love TextMate 1 to bits, and use it every day and like most other TextMate users out there, am not really looking to upgrade anytime soon.

    Take your time with it, and make it a worthy upgrade.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  41. 06 Jan 2010 | # René wrote…

    +1 for releasing "when it's done." :)

    and kudos for the great TextMate 1.x!

  42. 06 Jan 2010 | # Zachary wrote…

    Thank you for all of your time and devotion to TextMate. It is not easy to stay with a project and still have a "life" :P.

    I have full faith in you, TextMate 1.x has been the best investment of my life.

  43. 06 Jan 2010 | # Ed wrote…

    Anyone else kicking themselves for not starting an Open Source editor project, built on the success of TextMate bundles? I am. I kicked around the idea when TextMate 2.0 was a year over due but I convinced my self that it was surely close.

    The Open Source idea seemed to make sense given the fact that the main reason for TextMate's adoption rate is due to the many non-paid bundle contributors.

    No worries. It isn't the first opportunity that I have completely got wrong .

  44. 07 Jan 2010 | # Brett Terpstra wrote…

    Allan, it's been a while! Just wanted to say that I'm waiting patiently for 2.0, but not without great anticipation. The extensibility of 1.0 has made it my go-to editor even after a few years of minimal updates. I use it daily, and I've convinced a few people at TUAW to use (buy) it so they could use a proprietary Markdown bundle I wrote (mostly because our CMS doesn't support XMLRPC, bah).

    Just wanted to offer encouragement, myself and others I know will be here waiting when you're done with 2.0 :).

  45. 07 Jan 2010 | # Tony wrote…

    No worries Allan. Keep up the good work. TM1 is still the best around and I only want to offer encouragement. I'm very excited for TM2, whenever it gets here!

  46. 07 Jan 2010 | # Melvin Ram wrote…

    I find Textmate 1.0 to be good enough for now except the soft wrap doesn't match the indentation. If that was fixed, everything else would be gravy.

  47. 07 Jan 2010 | # Amazuki wrote…

    Do you keep random posts around and trigger them at random dates?

  48. 07 Jan 2010 | # Andrew McElroy wrote…

    The main feature I would like to see in a 2.0 release is a more advanced print config. If I could have more control on how things prints TextMate would be good for several more years.

    That is my only annoyance with TM.

    Other then that, great job. I am looking forward to whenever 2.0 comes out.

  49. 07 Jan 2010 | # Jay wrote…

    There is nothing else out there like Textmate v1.0, on any platform. Yea I've tried "e" and the other knockoffs for other platforms, none of them even come close to the real deal. Keep it up!

  50. 07 Jan 2010 | # Michael wrote…

    Textmate is brilliant software, thank you so much for the work you put in!

  51. 07 Jan 2010 | # Martin wrote…

    TextMate rulllllz!!

  52. 07 Jan 2010 | # Tim Uruski wrote…

    TextMate 1.5 is still the most useful piece of software I own, I use it every day. Thanks for the update, I'm looking forward to 2.0!

  53. 07 Jan 2010 | # asn wrote…

    Hi,

    Textmate is the best editor i ever had. Take time and dont get nervous;)

  54. 07 Jan 2010 | # mbk wrote…

    I recently purchased Textmate and it is indeed a pleasure to work with. I still need to grasp how to use it to its full power…. but it is very good.

    The only thing that would help some people (I think) is an interim 1.5.x release fixing the minor SNow Leopard annoyances you had already documented. My guess that would be little work?

    Anyway, keep up the good work.

  55. 07 Jan 2010 | # grimen wrote…

    TM 2.0 far away, no problem if it wasn't for that Snow Leopard crashes: You guys gotta fix the Snow Leopard bugs making it crash 10 times a day, making me and other developers' nerves skyrock – lost code (or the awareness that the editor could crash any minute) is very stressful. It's not OK to have a closed source editor that fails so that developers unsaved source is gone. I'm switching editor soon if these things don't get addressed I'm afraid. =/

  56. 07 Jan 2010 | # Caius wrote…

    @grimen:

    I've not experienced (or heard of) TM being unstable/crashing on Snow Leopard. At a guess, you've got a plugin installed which is causing the instability. I'd try removing all TM plugins and see if it still crashes so much for you.

  57. 07 Jan 2010 | # Jeff wrote…

    Textmate is a cool editor, and it's nice to see some innovation in what seemed like a stale application space. That said, I find this reasoning about not developing in the open to be totally lame. If you are too focused on developing and just don't want to take the time to write about it, then say so, or find someone who will. If you aren't sure what will be in 2.0 or when it will come out, that's no big deal. Put together a general outline, and talk about it as things move forward. As the roadmap solidifies then you can make that clear, or as you realize that you are going down some wrong paths, then you can make that clear. This open/closed waffling is just lame, and in my mind it goes counter to the vibe that was initially created around Textmate 1. Keeping your most passionate customers in the loop is a good thing. Whatever though, in the end if Textmate 2 is a better editor then people will pay for it.

  58. 07 Jan 2010 | # Paul wrote…

    TextMate 1.5 is awesome and I'm just scratching the surface of what it's capable of doing. I will happily pay to upgrade to 2.0 whenever it is finished. Take your time and make it great! Pixelmator, it seems, is developed by a two man team in much the same manner – listening to suggestions from users, but not releasing until it's "done". It's solid and stable. Sure there are features that don't get in, but the ones that are there work. There's always the next version to build on an already great product. I look forward to a revised book by James Edward Gray II as a companion to 2.0! Cheers.

  59. 07 Jan 2010 | # cheapRoc wrote…

    I'm not really sure what the problem is… I mean, TextMate 2.0 has been out for awhile. The only thing is, it's been called Emacs/Vim for the past 20+ years.

  60. 07 Jan 2010 | # cheapRoc wrote…

    Seriously though, I can't imagine with that pile of money you've had to have made from 1.0… you couldn't hire a staff of Apple Cocoa engineers to figure it out.

  61. 07 Jan 2010 | # David Boileau wrote…

    Hey

    Keep up the good work. Don't listen to the naysayers.

    Although I AM looking forward to some sort UI refresh, specifically, in the text rendering engine. It seems the text renders are, err, prettier, with recent editors (e.g. Espresso). Sharper? I dunno.

    Nevertheless, I always come back to TextMate. Nothing beats it when it comes to pure text manipulation. For me anyways, VIM and Emacs aren't my cup of tea.

    Cheers.

  62. 07 Jan 2010 | # Watts wrote…

    I've kvetched here occasionally about the slow development, but after trying other editors that are more "visibly" developed, I keep coming back to TextMate 1.5. Even with the handful of things I wish it did that it doesn't, the things it does are still a net win. I'm amused by cheapRoc's comment about Emacs/Vim — those are actually the only editors out that can really beat TextMate in terms of power, although their ease of use leaves something to be desired. I'm sure technically one could completely rewrite TextMate in Emacs, but it would hurt. A lot. :)

    I would second Erik's comment about posting screenshots occasionally, and also Alcides' comment about using your users as resources. (Not that he phrased it that way, but that's the upshot.)

    I'd also again recommend making it a paid upgrade, even if the upgrade fee is only nominal. :)

  63. 08 Jan 2010 | # Ben wrote…

    GG wrote "Allan, I’d take a page from Blizzard and Id Software and just say it will be released 'when it’s done'."

    That's a remarkably good analogy. Starcraft 1 is over 10 years old and tons of people still play it, despite some substantial limitations, because Blizzard just Got It Right in ways that no game since has been able to, just like TM 1.0 in the world of editors. TM 2, like Starcraft 2, looks likely to Get It Even More Right, and I for one am willing to wait as long as it takes, and I'll keep enjoying version 1 in the meantime.

  64. 09 Jan 2010 | # Anon wrote…

    So, should Alan spend some time in Redmond and just ship the code? Half baked, stuff doesn't work?

    Then, maybe five years from now, 2.0 will finally hit SP3 or be considered mature and stable?

    With the increasing number of editors, becoming like the twitter-app-arms race, I'd rather wait for a badass TM2.0.

    If TM1.0 was "five years behind", and truly so bad, I seriously doubt it would still be this popular.

  65. 09 Jan 2010 | # Michael Bianco wrote…

    Thanks for all the hard work alan, I always appreciate those who chose to get the job done right rather than get it done to please an audience.

  66. 09 Jan 2010 | # Veit Winkler wrote…

    I find the way you're handling this completely alright. The currently released version of TextMate is not in any way out of the time and still by far the best editor for developing purposes on the Mac. For some time there was a lack of communication thought, I appreciate a post like this one from time to time that shows people you're still on it;-)

    Best,

    V

  67. 10 Jan 2010 | # Fr. wrote…

    The analogy to Duke Nukem Forever is superficial. The changes mentioned in the blog post point to something completely different. Deep thought about under-the-hood core mechanisms is nothing like upgrading to the last rendering engine in a video game market…

    Good luck with development. It seems you are over the most difficult bits. TM1 is running like a charm in the background. My only complaint at the moment is that the new 'intuitive' spellcheck in OSX 10.6 is not good enough with truly multilingual documents (10.5 worked better).

  68. 10 Jan 2010 | # David Derbes wrote…

    Thanks very much for the entry, Allan. My gripe is not at all with you or 2.0; it's with Apple. 10.5 and 10.6 broke a lot of apps. OK, OK, some were a little dubious (I happen to like Unsanity's haxies) but there's no doubt in my mind that some coders are having a hard time adapting to the new OS's.

    I hope that when 2.0 appears, the ability to eg execute Python in a window is regained, and I'm a little fearful that 10.7 or not long after will kill it.

    Best of luck with 2.0. I'm looking forward to buying the upgrade.

  69. 11 Jan 2010 | # Paulo Mattos wrote…

    Regarding the starting from scratch approach (to new versions), I had countless discussions with co-workers along the years — more than I care to remember — on the pros and cons of such decision. (Yes, there is a tradeoff here, and sometimes you have to start from scratch!)

    A nice take on the dangers of complete rewrites was written by Joel Spolsky a while ago. (This article was even referred by the Python 3000 team as one justification for implementing the next version as an evolution of the Python 2 code base, as opposed to a complete rewrite.)

    Nevertheless, on projects with a small and stable team (e.g., 1 developer); good documentation/specs; an API-centric design with decent unit testing coverage; and a next version with design disrupting features (e.g., TextMate 2.0!), the starting from scratch approach can certainly work wonders.

    Allan, I wish you landed on the right side of this recurring tradeoff!

  70. 11 Jan 2010 | # Corey wrote…

    Let's just hope you aren't the Axel Rose of the developer world.

  71. 11 Jan 2010 | # Yann wrote…

    Not sure I understood everything… ;) But thanks for the update!

  72. 12 Jan 2010 | # Nick wrote…

    Well, you don't swing too often, but when you do, you aim for the fences. I'd rather have excellent, awesome software, and that takes time. Thanks for taking the time to make it right, not right now. But I still hope I get it before I'm 40. :-)

  73. 14 Jan 2010 | # Bill wrote…

    My question is how in the world does Alan afford to take so long? I mean, what are you doing for income during this period? It can't possibly be that TM1.x still provides for rent, food, etc, does it?

  74. 14 Jan 2010 | # pk wrote…

    "I find Textmate 1.0 to be good enough for now except the soft wrap doesn’t match the indentation."

    That would be so cool. I came from print design originally, and the softwrap not matching the indent has kept me from tabbing html since I started. I just can't take the ragged alignment with tabs and long

    <

    p> wrapping outside the tab structure.

  75. 14 Jan 2010 | # Peter wrote…

    @Bill maybe that exactly answers your original question. It takes so long (more than 3 years now) because he has to do some other job to live and consequently has much less time devoted to TM2 development.

  76. 14 Jan 2010 | # Zeppelin wrote…

    Quick question: is it possible to set theme coloring dynamically based on context? It would be useful in two cases:

    • Binding themes to document types
    • Setting background/foreground at color definitions (eg. when the parser finds "#FF1100" it sets it's background color to #FF1100)
  77. 14 Jan 2010 | # Jonas Müller wrote…

    Thanks for the update, Alan. Good luck for the rest of the 2.0 development!

  78. 15 Jan 2010 | # Agos wrote…

    We'll wait. It'd be awesome if it shipped tomorrow… but I think that everybody understand that it's gonna be even AWESOMER if you take the right time to develop it.

  79. 16 Jan 2010 | # Bill Ematson wrote…

    2.0 is vapor.

  80. 16 Jan 2010 | # Chris wrote…

    TextMate is still the best texteditor for OSX, so don't bother too much ;)

  81. 17 Jan 2010 | # Aaron wrote…

    Thanks for the update! I'm another one of your scratching the surface users, so I'm looking forwarding to 2.0 but I don't want it rushed!

  82. 17 Jan 2010 | # Carter Adams wrote…

    TextMate 1.0 is excellent software. You've more than proven yourself as a developer, so I'm not worried about eventually seeing 2.0. However, it would be very nice to see an alpha when one is close to feature-complete and stable.

  83. 17 Jan 2010 | # Mark wrote…

    I use BBEdit and TextMate both, for different project types.

    I don't consider TM 2 not being released yet as failure, it's just that I believe you are trying to deliver some cool new thing, which interests me because what you were able to achieve in the first version was great.

    I'm interested, excited about the possibilities; and wish you success in delivering what you've envisioned.

  84. 18 Jan 2010 | # DHR wrote…

    2.0 is vapor.

    But isn't it something of an anthropological constant to inhale some vapor? In fact, inhaling vapor has proven for thousands of years to be a proper way to augur. Ask Delphi.

  85. 18 Jan 2010 | # Peter wrote…

    Yeah, I agree with Carter — give us the early alpha for testing (when available), at least to existing customers, since it's too late to scare off those who already paid for it :)

  86. 19 Jan 2010 | # P Kuryloski wrote…

    It seems a strange coincidence that I have discovered this post on a day which I can say with confidence, "I feel you on this one Allan". I've been working on a massive project myself, with many unknowns and yet a lot of timeline pressure (and also for which I use a great deal of the awesome TextMate 1).

  87. 19 Jan 2010 | # Mcilvena wrote…

    If you don't me pay for 2.0, I'm making a donation! :)

  88. 20 Jan 2010 | # Vladimir wrote…

    I started thinking that TextMate 2.0 is the Bubble…

  89. 20 Jan 2010 | # Riki wrote…

    Quick Allen! It has been already taken too much time. I think development is very slow or ineffective. So far unclear! Please release Texmate 2.0 as soon as possible.

  90. 21 Jan 2010 | # James McCarthy wrote…

    If there were 1 thing I would beg for is fixing the way the file browser in TM 1 jumps around and loses position on any update. If that were fixed I'd happily wait for 2.0 with until whenever it's cooked.

  91. 22 Jan 2010 | # Daniel wrote…

    Sigh, I need split windows. It sounds like it is going to be years until TM can support that. Back to Emacs for me.

  92. 22 Jan 2010 | # Douglas Soares de Andrade wrote…

    Hi,

    TM1 is great, which a buch of features, but what i really miss in the correct undo behaviour.

    Undo one char by time is a disaster for a lot of chars. (of course it makes you a better programmer, because you make less mistakes to avoid this TM1 "bug", hehe).

    If that can be fixed, as a release to TM1 i would gladly wait for TM2 (or whatever) the time it takes to be ready.

  93. 22 Jan 2010 | # Josh Walsh wrote…

    The best part about waiting for TM2 was that I got tired of waiting and moved to VIM. I don't think I'll use TM again, unless it supports VIM bindings.

    Take all the time you need, Allan.

  94. 22 Jan 2010 | # ConnyLo wrote…

    Keep cool, go ahead. Please include some FTP/SFTP Features %-)

  95. 22 Jan 2010 | # Eric wrote…

    I bought Textmate 1(.5) because it's the best damn editor out there, bar none. I use it daily – my workflow is dependent on it. Whenever you release a 2.0, I'll buy it, because I'm sure it'll be great. Take your time. I live by Textmate – I'd far rather have a quality product than a new version number.

  96. 23 Jan 2010 | # Anthony Calzadilla wrote…

    Allan, isn't 2.0 a free UPGRADE for 1.5 users?

  97. 23 Jan 2010 | # Victor wrote…

    I own TM and I find it a bliss to work with. There is one feature request (maybe this is not the place to make demands but hey…) I am in love and find it extremely useful to use NetBeans quick search feature, its the same idea as FireFox, Safari and Google Chrome's quick search features; an comand-f attaches a one line search field to the window and highlight live, as you type the found items in the document… if such a plugin or built-in functionality could be made available for text-mate, I'd be willing to shell out half the price of TM extra just for that!

    But, aside for my peculiar demands, good job and keep at it!

  98. 24 Jan 2010 | # Marco wrote…

    @Victor

    Did you try Ctrl+S? This should do at least half of what you are requesting.

  99. 24 Jan 2010 | # Mike Balk wrote…

    Like many others, I use TextMate everyday in my work as a software developer. It is a very good fit with the way I work. When 2.0 is ready, I'll buy it. But there is no hurry. Verion 1.5 is still a great editor.

  100. 26 Jan 2010 | # Martin wrote…

    Hey Allen,

    I think for the next release you should seriously consider to not go big bang with so many features again, as that is a serious risk (in terms of business and also in terms of complexity).

    Go one big feature at a time and introduce that, then we (your users) will be way more happy and you have way less risk involved in your company. (Which is how it should be)

    Regards, Martin

  101. 26 Jan 2010 | # Colin wrote…

    I think people will only wait so long. I now use Netbeans and find it absolutely fine for Ruby and better for HTML/RHTML. It is slightly slower true but a price I happily pay for easier debugging, better source formatting and integrated functionality rather then the rather crash-prone pseudo command line functions in TM. When the HTML tidy messes up code for the umpteenth time I lost patience.

    TM2.0 will need to be seriously good to make me jump back and pay for the privilege. Still I suspect the developer has made a nice tidy sum and good luck to him.

  102. 28 Jan 2010 | # Breno wrote…

    Hi.

    Thank you for the TextMate. One thing that missing in last version is a same as Fuzzy Finder of VI.

    The system to search the particular file is much better than Go To File CMD+T.

    It's only suggestion! Regards, Breno

  103. 29 Jan 2010 | # arnod'mental wrote…

    Hi dude ! No hurry, as long as Texmate 1 remains the best source code editor ever no need to hurry for the 2 release. So take your time !

  104. 03 Feb 2010 | # AIIan Odgaard wrote…

    Ok, I'll be honest.. I totally screwed it.

  105. 03 Feb 2010 | # alex wrote…

    Ok, I’ll be honest.. I totally screwed it.

    Irony? Depression? Empty phrase? Trolling?

    you didn't screw TM1 and I sure hope you wont screw with TM2 :p

  106. 03 Feb 2010 | # UserNotFound wrote…

    Ok, I’ll be honest.. I totally screwed it.

    Yes, you did indeed. 2 years is way too long. Just opensource the project.

  107. 03 Feb 2010 | # Allan Odgaard wrote…

    alex: Trolling indeed — as mentioned in my previous comment I should just disable commenting altogether (now done).

Comments closed, you can use the mailing list for discussion.