This happens sometimes when developers make business decisions.
Any improvements will be in the 20%-30% range. Meanwhile, Sublime Text is 10-100 times faster. Atom is dead, in the long term.
1. Atom is an open-source developer tool. 'Business decisions' (whatever they are) should take a back seat to 'developer decisions'.
2. The technology stack is not a long-term constraint on performance. It's perfectly feasible that performance will increase substantially over time.
3. Sublime text is not '10-100' times faster.
I'm a massive Sublime fan, and won't be using Atom. But you're spreading FUD.
Atom doesn't have a 64-bit version either. I tried it as a replacement for Sublime Text 3 but it just doesn't cut it. I am wondering why ST3 development had slowed down in the first place.
Hmm?
/usr/share/atom/atom: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64
edit: its here: https://github.com/atom/atom/releases/download/v0.177.0/atom...
Because it uses Webkit and Javascript rather than being implemented natively.
One thing I found extremely slow for instance was copy and pasting of large chunks of text, but that's something I only experienced while testing Atom's performance. For my common text manipulation, I've never experienced the slowness that keeps so many from using Atom. I understand that people are bothered by this, but saying "Atom is slow" imho makes Atom appear as this giant unsuably sluggish piece of software that it is not.
- Text editors are not that complex (even with plugin systems they are not doing HPC work).
- Text editors were not perceived as slow many years ago.
- Our computers have only got faster (10000x range).
- It is 2015 and a text editor is slow (sub-second delays in GUI, large file limits, etc).
- There are text editors not written in JS/Webkit that are not slow by orders of magnitude.
While I'm not bothered by Atom being slowish, I think there is some basis for dissatisfaction here. Of course, nobody is obligated to use Atom.