> I tested it with a sample event and I don't see any way to RSVP without logging into an Apple account. Maybe I'm missing something?
You are. I explicitly created a burner email and invited it to an event.
When I navigated from the invite email I was prompted to sign in which I declined. It then allowed me to join the event after I confirmed with an emailed code.
On joining the event I was able to set my name and send a note.
The way I tested it was to create Share link, then navigate to it in an incognito window on Desktop and try to RSVP. I am still unable RSVP without login. Perhaps it works without login if you explicitly invite a certain email.
In my youth, I participated in "kite fighting," a popular activity in my home country. During these battles, opponents maneuver their kites, attempting to cut each other's kite string through tricky aerial tactics. We used special kite strings coated in thin glass. The victor's prize was getting to keep their opponents kite. Around January, during the kite festival, there would be hundreds of kites in the air all dancing or playing with each other. A magnificent sight.
In the late 80s/early 90s when I was kite-battling, it was common to use these glass coated strings. I haven't played in decades, but it does seem quite dangerous now that I think about it as an adult. I'm glad the practice is banned.
We live in a different age today in terms of safety awareness. I vividly remember playing with powerful fireworks during Diwali celebrations. We'd light them in our hands and hurl them skyward moments before they burst. Today the mere thought of this makes me shudder, and I can't even imagine my children playing this way.
It's not really a sport where you meet on a field so it's kinda tough to enforce. Everyone is out on their roofs flying kites (according to what little of it I've seen in Rishi and Jen's segments on TLC's 90 Day Fiancé: The Other Way)
Your point is valid - we shouldn't take single-country risk in investing. Assuming you believe the world as a whole will get more productive and value creating, globally diversifying your stocks is the answer.
As an example that supports your point, the Japan stock market (Nikkei) peaked in 1989 and STILL has not returned to that high.
> Nikkei) peaked in 1989 and STILL has not returned to that high.
Also, the FTSE 100 has been almost flat since the financial crisis, so basically just a little over 10 years. It was at about 6300 in the first half of 2013, it's at ~7700 now, a ~22% return over 10 years is nothing to write home about. For comparison the SP500 was at ~2300 in the first half of 2013 vs ~3800 now, a 66% return. And that's after last year's 23% decline.
If you continued to invest in Japan throughout that period after, you'd be up today. The only case you were forever screwed is if you really aren't pouring more money into that (e.g. retirement).
Congratulations on the launching to real users. I know how challenging that is and especially when your users are kids, I can imagine the pressure is much higher.
One piece of feedback on your use of the term AI. While adding the term "AI" to the description of /most/ products seems to increase their appeal, in products that are for children, to me, it reads like this product will be buggy at best and ends up decreasing the appeal. Words like researched, "smart", advanced, cutting-edge etc may be better suited. This is just one person's reaction, of course. I could be wrong--perhaps to non-engineers, reading "AI" on kids' products now has a more positive reaction.
A "real" demo video was exactly what I was looking for as well. Since the concept is so novel, seeing the product in action would increase my trust, and willingness to buy significantly. My skeptical side made me wonder if demos with real children had been left out on purpose so it doesn't make the product look bad - probably not what you were going for.
Great to hear and congratulations to the team. Amazing persistence. I used to be a huge Textmate fan - it was so revolutionary in its time. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. The Google Trends comparison of Textmate, Sublime Text and VS Code tells the story: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
When I was starting with vim, I was searching for 'vim [something]' a lot, from plugins to configurations, trying to improve the experience. I have since switched back to Atom and now to VSCode.
I don't search 'vscode [something]' nearly as much. Most of the configuration options are explained in the interface (both the visual one and `settings.json`). I can find plugins right from the editor and that usually also includes essential information about working with the plugin.
I still use barebones vim for commit messages, and I still find myself looking for how to trigger the spelling suggestions. I never seem to recall the `z=` when I need it.
Just because something is less user-friendly and requires more knowledge or looking for help, it doesn't mean it's more popular.
Looks like Emas used to rule the roost but then died away. What really piques my interest is why those of us in Wyoming (and the Dakota’s and Alaska) and apparently love Vim:
Emacs takes a fair bit of commitment in time and practice to use it well. In these days of 40 hour work weeks, and life long beginner stage programmers. You won't be seeing its usage grow.
I'd even go to an extent and say vim trends show supply of intermediate level programmers. Emacs trends show supply of expert programmers. The fact that those trends are in a downward direction tells a story in itself.
Absolute numbers could be up, even if relative share is down. Intel reported growth in fortran compiler sales, but python does grow more, so relative numbers are what you expect.
It’s possible that native graphical editors will increase in popularity at some point. There’s probably a niche of people who don’t like the potentially poor performance of Electron-based editors but don’t want to learn (or find that they dislike) terminal-based editors like Vim and Emacs. Who knows? Google Trends isn’t an accurate way to tell the popularity of programming languages either.
Its native but cross platform so many Mac purists don’t consider it as “native” as TextMate, which is built specifically for the Mac and doesn't compromise on standard Mac UI idioms.
Having said that, if they had known all the modern alternatives were going to be even less “native” amd run in a browser engine, they'd probably have been less nitpicky.
Eh, as a macOS user until recently, I found Sublime Text to be a very integrated application. Appearance and behavior was exactly as I'd expect from modern macOS applications.
It may not be heavy on archaic Mac features such as AppleScript integration, but I hope we can all agree to ignore those technologies.
TextMate just brings memories of the 10.4 Tiger days.
TextMate never had AppleScript integration, AFAIK.
Also, I'm not convinced we should ignore those "archaic" technologies, at least in the abstract. Applications can provide "dictionaries" of commands that, when implemented well, provide GUI applications with the kind of "snap together for amazing effect" you get with shell scripts and a host of well-written CLI tools. You arguably can't script the AppleScript-intensive BBEdit to the same level that you could, say, Emacs or Vim, but imagine the possibilities of a suite of apps from different makers that all had complete scripting dictionaries that could all be woven together with a deep system-wide scripting language.
I actually think it's a shame that AppleScript has been kicked to the curb. I don't think we have a "modern" replacement yet -- certainly not in the Apple ecosystem, and I'm not sure anywhere else. (Shortcuts on iOS is trying, but it's not on the Mac yet, and it gets pretty clunky if you start doing overly complicated automation bits with it.)
AppleScript is a great idea in how everything is scriptable.
Unfortunately, the language itself is a horrible abomination from the wild 1990s days of Mac OS... sorry, now macOS... and writing absolutely anything in it is painful.
I feel like Apple introduced Automator to overcome the pain of AppleScript, but it never really caught on (I don't even know if Automator is still on macOS.... yep it is, still with the cute Aquaesque icon)
Nowadays everything is Electron anyway and those are not that well AppleScript-able, but what to do, that's life
JXA, like Scripting Bridge before it, was shipped crippled and buggy and abandoned once it was out the door. Apple finally disbanded the Mac Automation team and fired the PM responsible a couple years ago.
In fact, there are several production-tested Apple event bridges that totally wipe the floor with Apple’s failed attempts, but caveat emptor as I don’t do support:
We’ll see what happens when Shortcuts lands in 10.16, but I’d say the chances of Apple event automation having a long and healthy life ahead are 50/50, at best.
The language itself is pretty bonkers, to be sure. I think the Amiga probably did this better with ARexx, simply because Rexx was much better for "friendly scripting language." I was going to say I'd made my peace with AppleScript, but it'd be more honest to say "I've gotten better at beating AppleScript into submission."
iOS Workflow/Shortcuts is what Automator should have been in a lot of ways. If Automator was superseded by a macOS version of Shortcuts, I'd actually love it, as long as it didn't lose any of Automator's functionality. (All they'd really need to do is add Shortcuts that run AppleScripts and shell scripts, I think, and be able to use automator actions exposed by applications.)
I love Applescript. Not necessarily the language but what you can do with it is great. It's one thing that's keeping me on Mac--there's no Windows equivalent, much less a Linux equivalent. You can kind of hack stuff with Autohotkey but that's not the same thing at all.
>Eh, as a macOS user until recently, I found Sublime Text to be a very integrated application. Appearance and behavior was exactly as I'd expect from modern macOS applications.
Compare the file browsers and find dialogs and the difference is night and day.
Yes! Sublime Text certainly has the functionality, but the search/replace UX is a big part of what keeps me going back to BBEdit for technical writing.
Depends on what you mean by "native". The core is compiled to a native binary. But it doesn't use macOS native text editing or UI idioms beyond the level of windows and menus. If you don't want to use TextMate, you might as well use Visual Studio Code instead, which is closer in spirit to the native Mac idioms and is easier to configure.
I'm not well versed on the specific implementation details of ST, but whatever the ST team does on macOS yields a result that is much closer to a native application than VSCode does through embedded Chromium. The difference in text rendering is particularly noticeable on a non-hidpi display.
Sublime Text is C++ expect for the plugins part. And they have put years to optimize it. It beats everything when it comes to performance, memory, and power consumption.
The only fight it can't win over VSCode is the extensions and ecosystem.
I found that ggl trends graphs for tech topics usually decline over time and I attribute it to more non-technical crowd becoming netizens and thus technical topics will usually seem declining.
It better be way, way better than Sublime Text is the plan is to charge Panic prices. Their apps are best of breed but this is a crowded space and they’re competing with free.
I mean, Sublime costs Panic prices. It just doesn't care that much if you abuse its trial.
(Wait, maybe I'm misreading your comment. Are you trying to say "Sublime is free, so Nova will have to be way better to compete with Sublime" or "Sublime wasn't good enough to justify its price, so Nova will have to be way better than that to justify its price"?)
Not the parent poster, but I'd agree that Nova would have to be pretty close to revolutionary to even get me to consider it.
People invest a lot of time into their existing text editors. For many people (myself included) a potential replacement would have to be more than a little better, because otherwise it's not worth the somewhat large cost (in terms of time spent on setup+mastery) of switching.
I can't say I've ever met anyone who actually uses Coda. Does it appeal more to the Dreamweaver crowd? (No offence to anyone who uses Coda, or Dreamweaver, or anything else!)
FWIW, I met folks from Panic when Coda was first released, back when the Macworld Expo was a thing, and said -- honestly -- that the program struck me as "Dreamweaver without the suck." They joked it was a shame they couldn't use that as a tagline.
Coda is more like VS Code and Sublime Text in some ways, but it definitely has Dreamweaver's "one stop shop for big web sites" thing going. (BBEdit also has that to a large degree, despite being even more of a pure HTML/text editor.) The biggest liability Coda has is that it feels designed for a time when we were primarily building sites out of hand-coded HTML; like BBEdit, it really isn't optimized for working on MVC-based apps, whether server-side or front-end.
I used to use Coda and Coda 2 - I loved them, and they were true "Mac" apps. But I switched to Sublime and Vim for one reason alone - Cmd-T/Ctrl-P fuzzy file opener.
That one feature makes such a difference to me as I switch between big project trees that I can't do without it.
I'd happily pay Panic for Nova if they add that back in.
(Ironically, as I get more deeply into Vim, I've found the :find and :buffer commands to be faster and just as useful as the CtrlP plugin, even if they're not quite as forgivingly fuzzy.)
^Q isn't as fuzzy as I'd like it - I do a lot of rails work and being able to type apvwpeopsho to match app/views/people/show.html.erb is really useful
Emacs is not by any stretch terminal-based. It can work in a terminal, but it also fully supports graphical environments.
In fact, I dare say that most Emacs users use the graphical rather than the terminal version.
I would consider myself an Emacs user and I use the graphical version too. With the exception of the menu bar and toolbar, Emacs seems to be graphical but not a graphical user interface, if that makes sense. It is still primarily a text-based application controlled through the keyboard. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that approach, but my litmus test is if you lose a significant amount of functionality by using the terminal version instead of the graphical version, it’s graphical. I don’t really lose anything (and I don’t think most people do) when running emacs -nw.
Actually you lose quite a lot, which is of course everything that requires a graphical environment. Examples include smooth pixel-based scrolling (see my other reply below), extensive image support everywhere (e.g. EWW/elfeed/GNUS/Org) which includes animations, PDF viewing (native on macOS), true color / SRGB, SVG rendering, better font support including emojis on macOS and multiple frames.
Maybe you don't care about any of these but don't tell me you don't really lose anything.
It does have smooth scrolling. On macOS (Emacs mac port), it's the same inertia-based scrolling that every other system app is using and on Linux pixel-based smooth scrolling was added for Emacs 26.
Yea, I try VSCode every so often, but I keep coming back to Vim in my terminal for the majority of my editing, but I actually have been using TextMate 2 (before release) as my GUI editor of choice. It’s simple, fast, and gets the job done.
If I wasn’t writing so much Python, I’d say I have a type.
> There’s probably a niche of people who don’t like the potentially poor performance of Electron-based editors
Haven't noticed any performance problems with VS Code, since I started using it everyday maybe 3 years ago. I switched from Intellij based editors to VS Code and before that I used vim for a decade.
600 MB memory usage with just one small text file open IS a performance problem imo (but I agree the app doesn't feel slow).
Especially on MACs were RAM is priced at a premium.
On Windows I developed a small program that sums the ram usage of my browsers and Electron apps I use. Between Firefox, Chromium and VSCode it's frequently around 4 GB of ram ! That's insane just to basically browse text.
It isn’t native in this context; As a sibling comment mentioned, OniVim2 uses revery[0], which uses it’s own widgets (not native ones) like flutter[1].
Quoting from my old comment[2]:
> We really should be trying to use the native GUI toolkit (or cross-platform native UI libraries like libui), not using Flutter-esque libraries that draws everything from scratch.
> Coherent UI is a very important point to users IMO. Users can assume that some special feature from App X will also work on App Y.
I'll adopt whatever definition you want "native" to mean for the discussion - and under your definition of native, I would say it's pretty clear that users of text editors and developer tools don't care much at all about "native"(your definition of using the platform provided widgets). Just look at the market share of developer tools and IDEs/editors that don't use stock platform widgets. They are the ones that have become dominant. The problems that people have with the dominant players that have gained traction is the performance. You might be able to make the case that using stock widgets matters for non-developer tools (and I would only partially agree there), but for developer tools when people say they want "native" they are more likely to mean they want the performance that more often comes with natively compiled languages without a VM.
It makes sense that developers would trade stock platform-widgets in exchange for an editor with greater cross platform reach because users of these tools benefit from network effects of these tools having wider reach. They want someone to have written the plugin/extension they're looking for.
Personally, I'm not looking to increase the ways that I'm locked into my current operating system, so all else equal, I'd favor an editor that runs everywhere.
FWIW personally with "native" i mean "native widgets too, where possible". It isn't always possible and i'm ok with that, but if your application uses a text edit area, a treebox for project files, a menu bar, a bunch of tabs and perhaps a toolbar (the "standard" IDE layout -AFAIK- introduced by MSVC4 back in the 90s and replicated by pretty much every IDE and most "programming" text editors since then) then every mainstream (and most niche) desktop OS outside of Linux/X11 has native widgets that provide 99% of the functionality (with that missing 1% being the text edit area itself and some minor UI stuff).
(and also FWIW, of all text editors personally i use Notepad++ on Windows and Geany on Linux - though as i really dislike Gtk3 and Geany switched to that, i'm looking for some alternative that uses a more snappy and lightweight toolkit - for now the Debian version i use is still on Gtk2 but that is just a matter of time to be replaced)
Under that definition of "native", it's pretty clear developers don't care very much about having "native" text editors/IDEs, wouldn't you agree? You can look at editor usage to see how they are voting.
Yeah most developers probably do not care, but it isn't like nobody cares (for example i do and i read comments like mine on HN often, so there are others who do too). At least when it comes to text editors there are options and you can use whatever you want regardless of what a complacent majority votes for :-P.
Though i also believe that the functionality some people want from their applications is only available on (what i see as) applications with inferior UIs and they'd rather get used to these UIs than not have the functionality - that is, their vote is for the functionality, not for the UI.
The other thing to consider is that developers spend up to ten hours a day in these editors. The biggest benefits of OS-coherent UI is that an application is quickly learnable for the first week. But when you use an editor for multiple years, all day long, many would trade that for increased customizability.
ReasonML does not imply JavaScript - it can compile natively using the OCaml native compilers - and that's exactly what Revery does. GLFW is also native/C.
The topics aren't perfect either, unfortunately. For example, Sublime Text, as we know it, was first released in 2008 while the topic trends data you linked shows it being the leader in 2004.
Would be interesting to know which percentage of vim searches are for vim keybindings in other editors. (i know several people who use vim keybindings, but don't know anywone who uses vim itself)
A little off topic: but when I was in uni our instructors insisted that we use vim for all of our development during the freshman year CS courses. Did everyone actually use it? Of course not, but a significant amount of class time was spent teaching keybindings, macros, etc.
I really built a habit of vanilla vim usage, and to this day I have yet to find a "modern" text editor that really supports everything that vim has to offer i.e. "vim mode" being more than binding the arrow keys to hjkl and providing modes.
I've found a lot support most of the standard modes / commands but not vim scripts (and partial ex mode quite often) . Which is often fine as extended functionality often comes through the host editor/ides native capabilities. The advantage being they can leverage things that just don't exist in Vim.
As an aside, I added vim and vi to the trends, which dwarf the others, but show a long and slow decline for `vi`, but a fairly steady state for `vim`. As a vim user that at times wishes he learned emacs instead of vim, emacs is an interesting trend to see: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q="...
How much of that is just users searching "how to exit vim" though? :)
Half-joking, but I think it is actually over-estimating the vim user base because there are so many things to search when learning to use vim, whereas the others are much closer to a traditional word processors.
Very true and likely, also considering how short the terms are, but emacs is in clear decline. Perhaps it's just become so easy to use, no one needs to search for anything anymore?
vi usage is here to stay, even if not heavy usage, some one has to always change something in a file on a server and has to use vi.
Apart from that, Emacs usage mostly correlates how much of text heavy tasks a programmer is doing. Most people tend to write tons of shell/perl/python scripts and take a lot of time recreate the magic of emacs outside it, Sadly most of it is also throw away effort with a lots of manual effort in between. Sometimes its entirely manual effort because eventually you need to learn Perl regexes, or sed or awk really well, and that's another black hole in itself. To me that's kind of a gap in developer training itself. If you are wasting man-hours to weeks doing what should be done in man-minutes you probably have a huge gap in the way you are used to thinking about how your work in general.
Growth of Python is a big problem for programming community at large. It's a tool largely designed for beginners and people refuse to move beyond that. What's worse they also carry that kind of thinking to any tool they want to use.
Developers are generally bad at automating our own work. We wish to liberate accountants and ware house workers from drudgery. But rarely do we look at our own very work the very same way.
Pode Vim, an album by Pedro Kimura is popular in Brazil.
Using git with vim also seems a popular search combo.
Personally I am amazed that the younger generation are keen to learn vim. I don't see why as I have gone the other way to only use phpStorm for editing in earnest. For me using vim for code instead of phpStorm is a bit like handwriting instead of typing, a definite loss of formatting and neatness.
The reason I find modern interest in vim so amusing is that there is no compelling excuse to use it. In the olden days when you had to queue to use a terminal in a computer room to enter code you had handwritten on paper there were no 'nano' or other editors, you had to learn and use vi.
I don't believe vi is quicker than a full size IDE but I still use vi, find and grep because I don't fully trust these new IDE tools and I am fairly dyed in the wool as a command line user.
The tools I don't fully understand are the textmate, sublime, notepad++ and other middling editors that don't offer the brilliance of vim or the possibilities of a phpStorm grade editor.
It's available on servers. It's fast to manipulate text with. It doesn't spin up my CPU (cough electron editors). It never falls over on me. Basically it just gets out of my way.
I'm curious, why phpStorm specifically and not IntelliJ or any other jetbrains IDE?
Obviously its php specific features aren't relevant here since we're discussing editors (or development environments) in general.
Personally I find that most IDEs are far too language specific, and I can't possibly invest the time to learn an IDE per language when there's so many languages I regularly need to edit (and probably yet more in the future).
VSCode isn't half bad, as it has plugins for just about everything, but it's still a juggernaut in terms of software size. None of the jetbrains product I've used had decent plugins for all the languages I need.
And of course none of these work over a purely terminal ssh connection, which is a bit of a deal breaker for me.
I believe Sublime does offer the brilliance of vim. And I use vim too! They take about the same time to configure to similar levels of usability. Sometimes a more native UI is preferable. Notepad++ has a bit more built-in. There's some Windows particular stuff where I might want that Win 2000 aesthetic. I'm thankful for all the options.
but phpstorm is just for php, right? what if you want to code in some rust, does it support it? with just a few tweaks and packages sublime turns into a half-decent editor for any language and stack.
> Jumped ship to Sublime when it was released because it was evolving much quicker. Was glad to have backwards compat on a lot of things like themes. Still have my modified “Made or Code” theme kicking today. Tried TM2 a ton during the betas but never managed to reach the same level of productivity as Sublime. My muscle memory is too strong now and I can’t find any reason to leave.
That's an interesting comparison. I completely agree that VSCode is the rage right now. Sublime was big 2014-2016. I'm surprised atom isn't as popular (I suspect its because of the awful loading time)
That’s why I never switched from Sublime to Atom, the general slowness was just too frustrating. Not just the load time, but things like opening large-ish files or global find/replace. VSCode kind of feels like how Atom should have been, fully featured with lots of great plugins but also snappy. I still keep Sublime in my toolbox in case I have to open a huge file or something.
That graph shows it was almost as popular in 2004 as it is today, so obviously that term isn't just referring to the editor. (since it wasn't released until 2015)
Nah, I just tried it out and it's great. One of the few good lightweight editors on macos, and might make me ditch vim since i never needed most of its functions. Popularity doesn't really mean much.
Dominance of the text editor market. TextMate was pretty meh, Coda I tried and thought was ridiculously overpriced for its total lack of features. Sublime was great for its time, I even paid for a license, but Atom is just too good for its value (free).
But apparently VS Code is becoming extremely popular. I wonder if its literally just because of GitLens (still missing from other text editors).
I do most of my development work in Jetbrains IDEs and am a huge fan but if you don't keep the environment open 100% of the time it takes a long time to bootstrap. texmate is great for fast one offs
I usually have three instances of IntelliJ open at the same time with large Java projects in them. One I'm working in, another a colleague is asking me questions about, another to lookup some related code, et cetera.
Far more than GitLens. Integrated terminal, for example. You can add database tools, Docker tools, etc. The relatively recent addition of SFTP is a first class implementation.
