Tokamak: A Rust IDE for Atom
vertexclique.github.io
vertexclique.github.io
Atom itself is a text editor, not a code editor, which is why I'm asking if this set of functionality crosses that distinction line. If Atom is capable of being a true IDE (code editor) then that would be big news.
I know, you can get quite far with a text editor and something like gdb, but after using Visual Studio for far too long, falling back to the commandline gets kinda.. old?
A lot of Firefox developers don't use Visual Studio for debugging, even though it's an option. Some of us just prefer command line debuggers.
That said, it would definitely be nice to support Visual Studio debugging, and we're in a position to benefit from all the hard work upstream LLVM is doing to support it.
Why are people wasting time on such "IDEs"?
I'm as baffled as you are, but I'm definitely not their target audience, as I'm content with vim and a terminal. If somebody can point me to some research papers on this, I would love to learn more about this phenomenon.
I think it's just what cool kids use these days. Development costs are low, so you get what you pay for.
If developers assume that displaying a web page in a container is a valid strategy for developing an editor, this is a small step.
It doesn't have all the features of IDEA but I don't draw the line there.
The GP isn't saying this isn't a code editor. The GP is making a distinction between a code editor and an integrated development environment. The GP's definition of IDE is integrating editing, building, testing, debugging, etc.
> Atom itself is a text editor, not a code editor, which is why I'm asking if this set of functionality crosses that distinction line. If Atom is capable of being a true IDE (code editor) then that would be big news.
And like I said, I consider Atom a rust IDE for the mentioned reasons
(It doesn't look like any of these are supported based on the advertised features, but maybe I didn't read closely enough.)
[1]: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=savioris...
https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust
The rust tooling is really coming around.
I try Atom every couple of months but never last long before heading back to my terminal. I'm assuming it's only a matter of time though before it's polished and fast enough that we'll see a lot of converts.
Trying to get permission to setup some kind of VM on the machine, (likely VB) so I can use what I'm used to.
It uses regex with some off-the-wall engine that they chose because it supports just about every encoding under the sun. Many of the language syntax packages I looked at could easily improve their regex performance.
Plus when you open a file as "plain text" or disable the syntax highlighting package much of the sluggishness goes away.
I'd love to dive in and try and fix it myself but I won't have time to for a few months. The code itself isn't horrible just a little undocumented.
My personal guess is that is because Code might use a more stream-like processing of the source files and does not have the whole files in memory (it also works with really big files - which Atom does not support) and that this does work better
You are probably right about the streaming system. It's interesting that atom doesn't do it that way (seeing as how streams are such an useful part of "server-side" javascript)
Like I said at one point i'd really like to dive into this stuff and spend some time trying to figure out exactly what the problem is (and maybe help find a way to fix it).
It may be that its worth the effort - I wouldn't know. But the feeling that I'm not actually improving things by moving to an editor that can't handle big files is just too prevalent.
So I inevitable switch back to ST3 and go back to work, every single time. Sorry Atom guys, its just not working for me.
It also does builds and code uploads to boards and other things like library management.
Unfortunately, Atom has severe performance issues with files that are anything above "tiny". For example, a 500-line XML file will lock Atom up for many seconds, to several minutes, while it's inefficient little ECMAScript parsing engine tries to chew through it. I build the latest version almost daily in anticipation of improvements in this area!
This is what prevents my adopting this otherwise lovely, vibrant, flexible editor for all my tasks.
A real IDE like IntelliJ has no problems with applying various tooling (parsing, validation, de-bugging of XSLT, etc etc) to a 15,000-line XML file.
In the longer term, I do hope that somebody is addressing this - which I think is literally the only thing that Atom has going against it.
The attribution text is right in the source code, first thing you'll see.
In some situations, it's difficult to place attribution along with the media, but in this case, it's not - it's a webpage - and having the attribution be in the source code is not really acceptable, because it's not reasonably accessible for someone looking for it.
If you look at that page and only that page, what leads you to believe that this is built of off a CC-BY work? Nothing. Sure, you can add "for copyright and license information, visit this link" in the footer, with a link to the github readme page that has the attribution, but removing it all together and only leaving scraps of it in the source code is just careless, reckless misuse of the original author's work.
"Need an attribution-free version?
Check out Pixelarity, my latest and greatest side project that offers attribution-free usage of all of my templates, exclusive new templates, and support (from me) for just $19."
https://github.com/vertexclique/tokamak/blob/gh-pages/LICENS...
He didn't obfuscate the source, and indeed the attribution is the very first thing you see in the source (and when it comes to HTML, the source IS the website). And while he didn't comply 100% with the 'default' CC license (which reads that you should state the changes made), he did comply 100% with the 'rules' given by the author. He gave credit, and linked to the website, as well as the specific licensing terms given by the author.
Tl;dr - since he's not selling a template, the copyright at the bottom obviously refers to his own product and not the web template. The attribution is in the correct spot, at the top of the source.
What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image.
What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page.
The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.
As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code.
I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'.
Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!
For example if I include a trademarked logo then does it mean that I have to open source it? Does it affect the content of the page?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode -- section 4(b)
All said, though, it's sketchy practice no matter what the license says literally. A main purpose of CC is to give you a license that can be followed common-sensibly. Playing "lawyer' with the wording isn't reciprocating the goodwill of the author.
EDIT: Not being a Russian speaker, I completely misunderstood this comment -- I apologize for my blithe ignorance.
Not to mention the iron hydroxide in rust.
Sometimes, it's deliberate; the writer is going for the effect of transcribing colloquial speech - like in English, you might write "innit" instead of "isn't it" to render a casual spoken conversation.
And sometimes, it's a sign of a illiteracy - like in English, when people write "should of" instead of "should have" because it sounds the same and they don't know any better.