Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | andreis1's comments login

This needs to happen; I doubt Larry has the balls for such a decision, though.


Not main, but I stopped using ST for it.


I won't even give it a chance over ST until I can resize panes, unfortunately. How that isn't a feature is beyond me.


there is a package for that: https://github.com/santip/resize-panes

apm install resize-panes


But how can putting this functionality into an extension package be considered a reasonable design choice? It isn't an editing "component" like e.g. Scintilla, it's meant to be a general purpose editor: offering a decent out-of-the-box user experience and providing a sensible foundation for extensions should be two of the top priorities.


> But how can putting this functionality into an extension package be considered a reasonable design choice?

Obviously you don't use emacs.


Because you can then separate out what re-sizing is. Maybe you write a plugin that lets you drag with a mouse to re-size, but maybe someone else never uses their mouse, and would prefer a re-size plugin which auto re-sizes everything according to a tiling layout similar to a tiling window manager.

Separating it out has a lot of advantages, especially by not putting in much opinion by default.


> But how can putting this functionality into an extension package be considered a reasonable design choice?

I like the design of Atom, because it allows me to freely compose an editor that does exactly what I want, and nothing more. While multiple panes is a requirement for bpicolo (and you?), I use multiple panes in Atom (my primary editor) and haven't felt the need to resize them. Am I the minority, or are the others? Or is it 50/50? Basically, we don't know until the editor has time to grow, and its community has a chance to dictate what features are required.


That should be pretty easy. As I recall right, Sublime is a really basic core (we're talking notepad.exe levels), and various core plugins actually make up the main functionality of the application.


A Google employee has recently posted this: https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk


That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their product is selling my information to advertisers.


I, too, live under a rock and would like some more info on that.


Wrt the 'omnibox vs address-and-search' conundrum: why not just let the user decide in Settings, defaulting on omnibox?


The user can decide. You can remove the search bar in the customization interface.

But the default has to be to show the search bar because of contracts they have with search partners, I believe.


No, it was always to separate search from addresses, lest search-ahead leak your data.


Letting the user decide is so old fashioned.


There's an extension that gives you a chrome style omnibox. It works fine, except I can't use tab to search within sites like in chrome. If anyone knows how I can get this in FF, I'd be very appreciative.


On Mac OS X, you can remove the search bar from the window layout and just use the URL bar as omnibar too. Sadly, you still don't get the tab to search a page domain option.


UVA is just one of many online judges. See http://qr.ae/r9bsW and https://github.com/andreis/interview



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: