What I choose to do on my own spare time is none of your business no matter how much of a waste of time you think it is.
My point (which was perhaps missed?) was that I personally just don't see the value in bringing another text editor into the world especially when you're focused on imitating and supporting others rather than innovating with your own way. If you had created an editor with a new way of doing things, or pushed past existing concepts I wouldn't have thought twice about its value, but all the feature checklist is pretty much "Make this TextMate and Sublime in one" without any real game-changing plans being mentioned.
As to your point about learning new things through projects and enjoying code I don't disagree. My point was simply that you chose to invest your time in an already crowded market and simply reinvented functionality that already existed. I can respect the work, effort and learning that went into the project, I was just musing that it may have been better invested in a project that is a bit more unique and doesn't just reiterate what has already been achieved. That's also why I ended it with </2cents> it was an opinion...
> If you had created an editor with a new way of doing things, or pushed past existing concepts I wouldn't have thought twice about its value, but all the feature checklist is pretty much "Make this TextMate and Sublime in one" without any real game-changing plans being mentioned.
That's the entire point; he/she wants to add features to Sublime but can't do so because it's closed source. He/she has to get to parity with Sublime before starting to add stuff, no?
Perhaps my viewpoint stems from the description of the project. The entire opening section talks about how Sublime Text has become slower and less communicative about releases. There's nothing mentioning surpassing the app, missing functionality, or items the developer wants to change. Simply that it's not moving fast enough for the developer of Lime to appreciate, so another must be built.
If there had been a specific statement saying "I want to implement X and Sublime doesn't" or "I want to have an editor do Z and none of the others do" then yes, I would see value in a project that starts off by imitating others. As it stands though, the project describes itself like a recreation of what's already out there without mentioning any intent to build on it.
This strikes me as the typical developer time-sink "I'll build this because I can". Sure it can be fun and educational and maybe help out a handful of people...but the real question that should be asked is "what sets my project apart from the rest". In this case, there's no sign of it aside from using GO and making it open source.
This isn't really a valid POV. There are many reasons to introduce solutions to problems with existing solutions. Is there any compelling reason not to open-source those solutions? Why does it matter whether there are competitors?
And if the sublime text author had followed your argument, Sublime Text would not have existed. "Textmate already exists, and so do excellent open source editors. Why bother cloning textmate on windows?"
I for one would be very interested in an open source Sublime Text clone.
My point (which perhaps you missed?) is that you don't get to tell me what I choose to spend my time on.