I am often asked which application, of TextMate and BBEdit is “best”. My heart incontestably goes to BBEdit but, truth is, both are good. Here is why we should stop fighting over it.
BareBones software is well-known among the circle we could call “Mac geeks”: indeed, thousands of people have come to rely on and appreciate the completeness and stability of BBEdit, their flagship text processing software. From code to lists, through configuration files and quick notes, there is nothing BBEdit doesn’t handle smoothly, reliably and quickly. In fact, for years, BBEdit was highly respected as being a prime example of what a Mac application should be.
Then came TextMate, the “other” text editor. At first, it was made fun of and mocked. Then, it started impressing the community. Today, it is commonly thought of as “the other editor”, the one that will overthrow BBEdit’s reign, maybe even put an end to Bare Bones Software.
As a text geek, I own licenses on both. It is no secret that I am a fan of most things Bare Bones — and no, I don’t get a discount, nor am I asking for one — but I like to stay on top of what’s happening in my little field and, hence, routinely use both applications. For this reason, I am often asked which one I prefer and how long I think it will be before TextMate wins.
My reply to this, as of today, would be: neither will win. And not for the reasons you might think. In fact, speaking today on, March 6, 2006, TextMate is, compared to BBEdit, a bit of a joke: full of promise, brilliantly thought-through, but definitely not ready — nor is it supposed to really be and its developers are working full speed to improve the application, something I admire and applaud. No, when comparing both, one needs to imagine what they will become, an admittedly risky endeavor. When I say neither will win a battle, I do take TextMate’s “just out of beta” status into account: neither will, in my mind, win a battle, even in the long run, because there is no battle to fight.
BBEdit is a truly Mac application. It has windows, buttons, preferences, documentation, and a company to back it. TextMate is a UNIX application. It has commands, plugins, configuration files and a community to back it. Of course, I’m simplifying a bit but, at much every level, from feature set to interface through support, both applications come from two very different worlds. In that, they will appeal to different users.
I am a Mac user. I know a bit of grep but I don’t want to study Python to add functionalities to my text editor. In that, BBEdit ravishes me: there is a button for everything, a menu item per function but that comes at the cost of limited extendibility. I know many users who hate that and prefer an extremely supple text editor, à la emacs, vi or whatever, allowing them to plug and tinker to their heart’s content. BBEdit has the most sinfully boring interface on earth because it works and it has come to make sense — Rich Siegel has already commented on how BareBones constantly reviews interfaces but is careful not to “break” anything. TextMate adds buttons, menus and options with each release and its users love the feeling of responsiveness they get from developers. It feels Cocoa in its preferences pane, X11 in its Tip of the Day and KDE in its bundle editor.
Thinking of text however, both applications are pretty much capable of doing similar things: they open text files, manipulate them, highlight code, run relatively smoothly and allow for plenty of UNIX or regular expression wizardry through their respective interfaces. Speaking in terms of actual use, I don’t believe BBEdit or TextMate are fundamentally different — even if, of course, they each have stronger and weaker points. Both get the job done. But both are also fundamentally different, in their own right and fashion. Brownie points go to BBEdit for its AppleScriptability but then TextMate has macros.
For now, and probably for years to come, I’m definitely a BBEdit guy. Give me updates, support and change the icon, I will be in heaven. But I don’t think TextMate is bad or BBEdit’s enemy. And those who like TextMate should give BBEdit a serious look, if only to see whether they may like it as well. For now, TextMate is “cool” and BBEdit is “out” but five years from now, this will no longer matter.
A closing remark, if I may. Many people often email me asking me why I accept to pay the BBEdit license and why I don’t wait until Bare Bones comes to “its senses”. Why? Because 39€ for TextMate is as much as a rip-off as 99$ for BBEdit: I could have editors as powerful, if not more, for free through X11 or the command line, much like I could be running Linux instead of Mac OS X, for pretty much the same feature set — at least as far as a text addict is concerned. There is much more to a choice than price and those who meet the requirements to run either application have already agreed on that, consciously or not.
Time for a new theme song, maybe?


Oh yeah, this isn't gonna inflame the Mac editor wars. Not at all :)
In fact, for years, BBEdit was highly respected as being a prime example of what a Mac application should be.
In what universe?
I mean, yes, if you thought all Mac apps should have inscrutable purple icons (in the window header, not just the app), weird partially-customizable floating palettes, huge and unwieldy modal search dialogs, and a new Apple technology adoption lag rate of four years.
I find your unMaclike assertion highly puzzling. TextMate is not inherently unMaclike (try Carbon Emacs if you want unMaclike). It follows the HIG, and it's a better overall OS X citizen than BBEdit. BareBones may also follow the HIG, but BBEdit contains many examples of undesirable user interface behavior, including muddled, overly complex interfaces and confusing terminology.
A more accurate contrast would be that TextMate is for alpha geeks, Mac or otherwise, innovators, people who like to tinker. BBEdit is for those who don't ask much of their text editors.
Ever since the release of TextWrangler _my_ needs are met. For Free™.
Chris,
The text you quote is meant to reflect what I believe to be the opinion of the Mac community as general, based on my reading articles, blog posts and reviews over the years. Of course, each has his own opinion of what "Mac-like" constitutes and this is not supposed to be The Truth.
This being said, I believe BBEdit is consistent in its interface and TextMate is not in all places — again, an admittedly subjective proposition. As far as adopting Apple technologies, I find BBEdit pretty good: it uses the Mac OS X word services, integrates with Terminal, recognizes the Services menu and is AppleScriptable. TextMate does inherit many Mac OS X features but lacks scriptability, which is a key component in many workflows. BBEdit does not "look" young, that is true but does use many new tricks daily — and it was one of the first applications to move to Universal Binary.
The points you raise about floating palettes are indeed one of my gripes with the current BBEdit interface. As far as purple goes, I'm afraid I have missed it — TextMate looks more purple than BBEdit to me but maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Window header buttons can be removed and edited in BBEdit, might I add.
As far as TextMate being a "better Mac OS X citizen", I honestly do not know. I guess one would first have to define what "being a good Mac OS X citizen" means. If interaction with other applications and system elements is concerned, I would say both BBEdit and TextMate are doing very well, although in different ways. Your perception of that "goodness", so to speak, will depend on what you need the application to integrate with.
Innovating and tinkering may be the same (as you rightly point out) and may not. A brilliant CSS developer may be a CSS alpha-geek, fluent in CSS3 and fluid layouts but may not need to know a line of Python. That does not make him less of an alpha geek in his field.
FJ
I hate to say it, but this article was a waste of time. Just look at Chris' post. He takes one comment out of context and then just rants. No comments about which product suits his work flow better, no comments about missing features, etc. And then, he/she tops it off with the ad hominem attack. Yeah! That will likely change the mind of tons of people. I'll be honest, I haven't really worked-up the gumption to try-out TextMate, mostly because of zealot's like Chris that seem to invade any discussion of text editors.
This argument is very old.
You may as well argue which is better, vi or emacs!
Mike,
Hence the theme song reference! ;^)
Thanks for taking the time to post,
FJ
Hahahaha! You think asking people to stop fighting religious crusades over editors (of all things) is going to be effective?! Silly boy! :)
Anyway, TextMate is crap -- unusable. Somehow they have broken text editing to the point that no input methods can be used at all. Yeah, I love a text editor that hangs after typing a couple of words, that rules. A "Good OS X Citizen"?? Only if you're smoking a huge crack rock.
I dont really understand the "Mac-like" argument at all. BBEdit is only Mac-like if you are referring to Mac OS 8. Its one of the ugliest Mac apps out there, and that in itself is very un-Mac-like. Frankly, I would be embarrassed charging as much money as BB does for an application, and still have it look as out-of-date as it does. I think the only people that make the argument about BBEdit being a good text editor are those who have been using it for a very long time; the rest of us are very confused as to why it is appealing.
Jeremy,
Thanks for taking the time to post! Silly I may be but I hope others can join me in my silliness if it can help us all text lovers work hand in hand! ;^)
FJ
My observation would be that TextMate seems to appeal to the new breed of developer who has come to the Mac because it's an excellent platform for unix-like development. You only have to look at how many Really Heavy Geeks in the web industry are carrying PowerBooks.
BBEdit is from a bygone era of classic pre-X Mac OS, when the hardware was known as a Macintosh not a Mac, and people actually cared what AppleScript was. That's not to say it isn't everything you say it is. It's very capable, but it's totally at odds with the toolset of - for example - a modern web developer. A good tool with a different audience.
I must also come clean and admit to being responsible for the purpleness of TextMate. I stand by that post, however!
hardcoreUFO,
This may come as a surprise to you but I only did get to know BBEdit long after having switched to Mac OS X, a couple years ago and I have used it extensively ever since. I do agree that most of the interface controls used by BBEdit are similar to those found in the Classic Mac OS but they are all valid on Mac OS X and their rather "dull" appearance makes it easier to focus on the content. While I love the colorful interface of Mac OS X, it can at times be distracting, especially when working in an environment where colors have a meaning - such as code.
The BBEdit interface is, indeed, not fun looking but I would encourage anyone to get familiar with it first. Also, remember all key bindings and shortcuts can be customized in BBEdit.
FJ
Drew,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post! I did remember seeing the post you linked to and found your analysis most interesting — I am known for a slight purple addiction within the MacDevCenter community.
This being said, I wouldn't say BBEdit is not suited to modern web development. For working with quite a bit of developers and designers, it seems to me those who do design (XHTML, CSS, PHP, Perl…) use BBEdit and those who develop Rails applications prefer TextMate. Two different audiences indeed, uniting their forces and tools to build a common website.
FJ
FJ,
My point wasn't that BBEdit isn't capable - it is. My point is that TextMate appeals to a different audience because of the way it plays nicely within a unix-like environment. It fits well with the toolset that audience are already using.
Drew,
I understood your post and we agree! Sorry if I was unclear and thanks for taking the time to post back. :^)
FJ
The simple fact that BBEdit only supports about 4 syntax highlighting colors in a language like PHP made me want for something else for a very long time... TextMate was definitely the answer. Macros, snippets, commands, excellent source highlighting (that's customizable), project view (well before BBEdit finally included a drawer), powerful, fast, constantly updated... it goes on and on. BBEdit just feels too old. I understand that if you want do script your editor a lot, BBEdit might be the way, but I don't believe a lot of the recent OS X users want to script things anymore. I think AppleScript isn't as important to people as it used to be.
My two cents: I have ten years of life with BBEdit, I could operate it in my sleep, and I love it to bits, but when it comes to Rails I plump for TextMate. The reason is that TextMate's Ruby syntax highlighting is streets ahead, and the Rails way of creating new files (tests, controllers, models) from the generate helper lends itself to TextMate's dynamically updating projects windows well. Horses for courses.
Seriously, calling an application (one that is used, admired and bought by many people who know what they are doing) "a joke" without giving any reasons beyond personal preference... That doesn't make you seem as smart and sophisticated as you think it does.
I personally think TextMate is alright, even great in some respects, and find BBEdit so butt-ugly and convoluted as to be unuseable. But that's my opinion. I don't go around putting that in the "Reviews"-section of websites. Note that I'm commenting on the quality of your article and/or the editorial choice to place it in this section. If you thought you were writing a review, you were doing something wrong.
Hasn't anybody seen Simultron? It isn't as feature laden as BBEdit and TextMate but it's pretty nifty. It's open source and you can check it out at this website.
http://smultron.sourceforge.net/
I shun both for skEdit. At only $25, it's the bargain of the bunch. But it's a full featured editor and it handles all of my XHTML, Perl, PHP, Javascript coding just fine. It's got a built in FTP client, and it is constantly being updated. Give it a try: skti.org
Getting into this is about as volatile as trying to bring up Mac vs PC ;-) I've been with BBEdit since OS 8 or perhaps even 7 and I got to learn it pretty well. Lately I find myself using TM more and more and it's almost exclusively my editor of choice now.
BBEdit is a truly Mac application. It has windows, buttons, preferences, documentation, and a company to back it. TextMate is a UNIX application. It has commands, plugins, configuration files and a community to back it. Of course, I'm simplifying a bit but, at much every level, from feature set to interface through support, both applications come from two very different worlds. In that, they will appeal to different users.
I don't agree. It's true that there is more of a UNIX-touch to TextMate but that doesn't make it any less of a Mac-app in my view. In fact, I would say it's interface is more Mac-like than BBEdit. I've never really taken to BBEdit's UI, but TextMate's I love. I do agree that they to some degree appeal to different users, and choice it's what it's all about.
I think this is a incredibly unfair representation of TextMate. You're either missing out on some major points of the application or haven't used it recently.
BBEdit? Textmate? Screw that! SUB-ETHA-EDIT!!!!
In all seriousness, I do love Subethaedit. Although it was designed with collaboration in mind, it is an excellent stand alone text editor. I also like the fact that is comes with a command line binary, which I use as a text editor for Mutt.
But to each his own.
I think Jeff nailed it: editor choices are very personal, and there is no single 'best' editor.
And since everybody touts their favorite editor: mine is vim (not vi). Not because it's Unix(tm) or highly configurable (in fact I detest configuring software), but just because of its very powerful editing capabilities - for that, the initial steep learning curve was only a small price to pay, and the Mac GUI version even plays nice with the rest of the OS.
BBEdit reminds me of the old days in OS 8/9. Plus it's a crazy, messed-up menu monster with bonkers prefs. In use, TextMate has lopped chunks of time of the ghastly task of coding (I'd rather be down the pub).
I only got interested in Bare Bones software when they release TextWranger.
I found it to be very useful and it soon became a part of my workflow.
I then decided to go for the competitive upgrade offer to BBEdit and I have to say that I've been overwhelmingly disappointed.
As far as I can tell, the only saving grace for BBEdit is the Search & Replace function.
That alone is the only justifiably useful feature. The rest is as Chris mentions, with the addition of being muddled, awkward and clunky...
Jeff Flowers, al 3 editors are coming with a cli and not only these. So you can use a bunch of graphical text editors with mutt on a mac.
Did anyone try AlphaX?
It's hard to take this article seriously when you say that TextMate is a "joke" and that BBEdit is a "true Mac application." WTF? I switched to OS X recently and when I tried using BBEdit the first thing that struck me was how un-maclike it was. Maybe if I wanted an OS 8 app inside OS X it would fit in, but it seemed really out of place. I've also used TextMate and I didn't find any of the problems you mentioned. I don't use either editor right now, but seriously, what WAS the intended point of this pointless article?
I love BBEdit and have been a license holder for years. When it comes to the most basic part of editing - keyboard control - it's undoubtedly ahead of TextMate, which has some horrible key combinations (and an author who I feel is somewhat arrogant when it comes to making TextMate the way us BBEditers are used to). But I switched to TextMate because of its snippet feature and auto-complete, which I find allow me to write my code much, much faster than by typing alone.
In all honesty, If BBEdit gained snippets and auto-complete, I'd rather use that.
As for which is the more "Mac" application - I'd have to say TextMate.
Garrett,
First of all, thank you for your comments. I am not sure AppleScript is less important that is used to be. Of course, Mac OS X introduced shell scripting but AppleScript, being a high level language, has an ability to tie graphical applications together in ways shell scripts simply cannot to — and, in reverse, shell scripting opens up many possibilities beyond AppleScript's reach.
In my experience, AppleScript excels as reproducing and automating workflows, which a great many users wish to do. Shell scripts are better at handling raw data and hence appeal to a different audience.
FJ
Matt,
Have you submitted feedback to Bare Bones? I'm sure they'd love to hear your comments.
FJ
Mark: I am arrogant with respect to not wanting to make TextMate like BBEdit users want it to be? How do they actually want it?
In all fairness, I never used BBEdit, and there was a reason for that. And I think I would do my users a disservice by making TextMate like BBEdit. As other posters have pointed out, the two products appeal to different mindsets (well, sort of).
We don’t want homogeneity. You say you only use TextMate for two features, so it would sound like better to have those two features added to BBEdit, rather than TextMate transformed into BBEdit.
As for this “review” — most disappointing to read my product mentioned as a joke without clarification, well, except maybe it doesn’t have windows, buttons, preferences, and documentation like BBEdit? oh wait, it does!
And why does the bundle editor feel like KDE? It is a Cocoa GUI, like 99% of the other applications running on Mac OS X (but unlike BBEdit).
I certainly don’t want to argue for or against either editor, but this “review” is a travesty.
Michael,
Thanks for your note. Don't worry, I do not believe calling an application a joke makes me sound smart or sophisticated in any way. The word is only used to emphasize a personal feeling, and is not meant as an insult — which would be inconsistent with my complimenting the TextMate team in many other places.
As far as editorial choice, there is always a call to be made. Indeed, that piece could have been placed in the "Opinion" category but then again, is there such a thing as an impartial review? And I'd love to read yours on the topic, as I am always open to hearing why my fellow users have to say!
FJ
Magnus,
As you very rightly point out, being UNIX-like and Mac-like are not two mutually exclusive propositions, especially when it comes to interfaces — and Mac OS X itself is a good blend of the two. Yet, many of the analogies and structures TextMate commonly uses are not familiar to the Mac "way of doing", if I can use such an expression — such as the lack of a preferences window for a long time. This, of course, does not make TextMate bad in any way.
As far as BBEdit's UI goes, it is a matter of choice, that goes without saying. In my opinion, it is pretty clear and straightforward once one has understood the underlying logic, a feeling I never got to have with TextMate. Much in the same way however, I guess we all have different ways of apprehending logic schemas…
FJ
Rufferto,
Thanks for pointing it out. No, I confess I never tried it out.
FJ
Scott,
I actually have used TextMate since the early public releases up until the last version. In that light, I feel I have a pretty good grasp of the way it is evolving. Now, it is entirely possible I am missing out on some things it has to offer and I would be delighted to hear your views on what it is I should focus on. My goal is not, as you know, to be unfair to anyone.
FJ
Jeff,
SubEthaEdit is indeed brilliant! I chose to focus on BBEdit and TextMate as they are commonly referred to as "enemies" but the Coding Monkeys sure have a place of choice in my heart as well!
FJ
Lars,
Very true. Thank you for sharing your comments with us.
FJ
Fergus,
I agree with you that BBEdit has rich preferences settings and many menus but I am afraid I do not follow you on what makes it a "menu monster" or the preferences "bonkers". Would you care to elaborate?
FJ
Wayne,
BBEdit's searching and replacing capabilities are indeed truly stunning! As far as clunkyness goes, I'd have to repeat my comments from above.
FJ
Jennifer,
First of al, thanks for sharing your experience. The point of my "pointless article" was simply to present my opinion on a rather heated debate making the rounds in the Mac world of today. Defining "Mac-like" can be done on many level: there is looking Mac-like, feeling Mac-like, behaving Mac-like, etc… I guess we have a different view of what this means and would first need to agree on a better definition.
Also, please note this is not an article but a blog entry, hence the personal touch.
FJ
Allan,
First of all, please note the words Joke or KDE were not meant as insults. I am glad you stopped by and took the time to post your comments.
As far as KDE goes, I was referring to the TextMate icon being used as a backdrop to the window, next to the choices list on the left, a layout that is rarely seen on the Mac but that reminded me of some Linux configuration panes sporting the logo of the distro or interface project.
As far as "Joke" goes, the word was meant to put emphasis on the evolution of both applications. I agree with you that TextMate is a very legitimate product with an enthusiastic community and user base, which I tried to highlight in my post. Yet, it is still, as you say, a work in progress, much like the accompanying documentation, screencasts and feeds. In that, it cannot be fully compared with BBEdit that is a more finished product. That does not make TextMate "bad" in the long run in any way.
In all fairness, I believe you should use BBEdit for a little while, if only to get a better feel of this post before calling it a travesty. It is meant as an opinion piece, not a Definite Truth (hence it being posted as a blog entry, not a full blown article) and opinions evolve. I am looking forwards to the future and TextMate is definitely among the projects I am watching most closely.
I hope this answers your questions,
FJ
When I say your review is a travesty then it is because you are misrepresenting TextMate.
You make it sound like there is no preferences, no or poor documentation, that the UI is like that of a Linux application, and that it is unfinished work (“not ready” as you say).
While it is certainly work-in-progress, thousands of people use it every single day to get their work done, and have no problems with that — e.g. see my user quotes. It has had a preferences window for more than a year, the documentation is generally characterized as exceptionally good, and as you can see from the comments above, many find TM to be the more mac-like application.
Allan,
Thanks for your reply. Allow me to clarify a few points:
1. The paragraph discussing preferences is about highlighting the strong points of each application, not about implying the other does not have them. As you may know, BBEdit does enjoy commands, a community, etc… I am sorry you misinterpreted my wording here.
2. One of your windows (not the entire application) struck me as KDE-like. Given KDE is a leading desktop environment, acclaimed for its interface, I do not see this as an insult. It is also a matter of personal feeling and the many comments in this thread do show there are more than one view to what constitutes a sound interface.
3. As far as TextMate being not ready, it is, indeed not ready for me as of today, while BBEdit is. Does it make it bad? No. Other comments in this thread show your application is "ready" for many people who find in it features they do not in BBEdit. Again, I do not see this as an insult, rather an acknowledgment of your progress.
4. It indeed has a preferences window! And I am well aware many people use TextMate on a daily basis. This is a fundamental element to this blog entry, so fundamental in fact, I did not feel the need to state it — if TextMate were a small, unheard of editor, it wouldn't be compared to BBEdit.
The comments show very diverse opinions and I am more than happy to discuss calmly and openly with my fellow Mac users. This, after all, is what makes our community such an enjoyable place to be.
FJ
Hey, what about SubEthaEdit? It's what I use to teach my classes from HTML to Php. W00T! :-))
Bob,
SubEthaEdit is indeed wonderful and has a place of choice in my arsenal! This entry was more about comparing and contrasting two applications that are often wrongly thought of as "enemies" but certainly not to ignore other of the great software in the field.
FJ
And of course, don't forget TextWrangler (which has an even worse icon!).
Textmate hands down....
I have to say, as someone who has used BBEdit for 10+ years, and TextMate for less than a year, I found this "review" -- even when considered as an opinion piece, instead of a true review -- to be pretty insipid. It's so stupid, it makes me think of the many Dvorak articles which are written purely to incite online riots.
TextMate is a fine piece of work. It's clear that Francois has barely used the application, except to poke around in the interface to find things to complain about. At the least, he certainly hasn't learned how to use it properly. I use TextMate every single day to write PHP and HTML code for a living; if that's "not ready for prime time" I don't know what is.
Alderete,
Thanks for taking the time to post your comments, I really do appreciate them. While you are entirely free to express your thoughts on my post — and I welcome any criticism —, I assure you I have not looked at TextMate for a couple seconds and "poked around" to "find things to complain about". I am sorry I cannot bring more proof of that to you than my word but I hope you can believe me.
I am glad you find TextMate to be a genuine help in your workflow.
FJ
As someone who switched from a pc to mac a little over a year ago, using bbedit was one thing I couldn't wait to do. I had heard so many good things about it. THE mac app. Wow, was I disappointed. If there weren't so many other great things about the mac, the experience would have probably made me switch back. It may be more mac like for someone who has used macs their entire lives, but for someone new to the mac and use to os X it feels like something from a bygone era.
I use and love textmate. It feels like a mac app, looks like a mac app, etc. etc.
I'm no expert on bbedit, and I'm sure there are a ton of reason others use it. But if one of your main points is that bbedit 'feels' like a mac app, you're on shaky ground from the start.
FJ,
I really appreciate that you are actively responding to criticism, but I am still of the opinion that the above piece is pretty bad. No offense, but:
Thanks for your note. Don't worry, I do not believe calling an application a joke makes me sound smart or sophisticated in any way. The word is only used to emphasize a personal feeling, and is not meant as an insult — which would be inconsistent with my complimenting the TextMate team in many other places.
If that is so, you are spectacularly bad at making clear what is fact and what is personal opinion. Judging from the other reactions to your piece, I'm not the only one who can't tell the difference. I don't know wether you realize it, but the "compliments" you speak of sound rather condescending to me.
As far as editorial choice, there is always a call to be made. Indeed, that piece could have been placed in the "Opinion" category but then again, is there such a thing as an impartial review? And I'd love to read yours on the topic, as I am always open to hearing why my fellow users have to say!
Actually, yes. I've read plenty of reviews that were absolutely impartial. Not because they didn't include personal opinions, but because they very clearly labeled them as such.
My personal review: Both are great editors, try them to see which one you like better. End of review.
Your article doesn't include any more information than that, eiter. The rest is fluff, insults and some weird and unsubsantiated opinions poorly disguised (or incompetently misrepresented, I don't know, really) as fact.
Please note again that I'm not commenting on your choice of editors. I'm also not commenting on your general ability as a writer. I just have a problem with this one, very badly written article. You wrote a crappy article about two exceptional applications that doesn't do either of them justice and isn't even amusing. No amount of justification will change that. Here's hoping you won't turn into another Dvorak. If this were your own website, I wouldn't even be here, because I'd think you wrote this just to generate ad impressions.
If all of this sounds overly mean-spirited, it's not meant to be. If I were a writer, I would want people to tell me when I'm talking out of my ass.
Dan,
Thanks for taking the time to post. I am by no means trying to state which application users "should" use here, simply pointing out that two of the best selling, most talked-about text editors on the platform are of a different breed.
It is not my place to tell anyone which application they "should" use. I can give recommendations but this is not even what I was aiming at here.
FJ
Michael,
You are most welcome for the reply. Dialogue is a wonderful way to learn and I'm always eager to broaden my horizons.
As far as the above piece being "pretty bad", I am sorry you see it that way but that is certainly yours to decide. I just hope it can be seen for what it is and judged as such.
I may be spectacularly bad at some things. At least, it appears we spectacularly misunderstood each other here, and this is never a comfortable situation. Whenever composing an entry, I try to word my opinions in a way that is at the same time clear and appeals to me, for some reason (be it color, some style effect I have grown fond of or whatever makes writing a daily joy). Some words may be clearer to some than to others, I can make mistakes in how I use them and, in a handful of cases, it can happen someone starts reading an article with an idea in mind and finds in it what he thought should be found, regardless of its actual contents.
These are all situations that naturally arise from written interaction, over such an ethereal medium as the Internet.
My personal review: Both are great editors, try them to see which one you like better. End of review.
We seem to agree, then. Isn't the third sentence of this post: "Here is why we should stop fighting over it."?
As far as a review being impartial, blog comments are not the most convenient medium to debate over such a thing but I would be inclined to disagree with you. We all see the world through the filter of our mind, no matter how hard we try. And as far as labeling goes, this is a blog, bearing a legal disclaimer at the bottom. I may not have made the best choice in selecting the category of this entry (although I do stick by my choice so far) but, as you can see, there is no intention to misguide anyone here.
Your article doesn't include any more information than that, either. The rest is fluff, insults and some weird and unsubstantiated opinions poorly disguised (or incompetently misrepresented, I don't know, really) as fact.
I do not believe I have attempted to disguise or misrepresent anything but you are of course free to think of this blog entry what you will. As far as my lack of competence goes, this is a question neither you nor I are fully qualified to appreciate.
Here's hoping you won't turn into another Dvorak. If this were your own website, I wouldn't even be here, because I'd think you wrote this just to generate ad impressions. If all of this sounds overly mean-spirited, it's not meant to be. If I were a writer, I would want people to tell me when I'm talking out of my ass.
I always appreciate criticism and I value yours. I do believe however that insulting Mr. Dvorak (with whom I have no relationship or acquaintance whatsoever, might I add) or using uncouth language is going to help any of us here. But again, I do appreciate your voicing your opinion.
Very respectfully,
FJ
Just look at Chris' post. He takes one comment out of context and then just rants. No comments about which product suits his work flow better, no comments about missing features, etc. And then, he/she tops it off with the ad hominem attack. Yeah! That will likely change the mind of tons of people. I'll be honest, I haven't really worked-up the gumption to try-out TextMate, mostly because of zealot's like Chris that seem to invade any discussion of text editors.
(1) I'm intentionally addressing only the Maclike aspect of FJ's argument; that's the reason for the quote.
(2) What context is missing? This isn't a soundbite on the evening news -- the full context is available right above my post.
(3) What ad-hominem? You've called me a "zealot" -- congratulations for lifting the dialogue, Anon. Please explain your offensive comment.
I wonder if there is another explanation here. I am an avid textmate user. I'd prefer some things to be different but overall, what a great app! My congratulations to Alan for having conceived and created it.
But the first time I used it, it seemed like junk. My free trial ran out and I continued using subethaedit. Later I had to do a reinstall and, having become a rails guy, I decided to give it another try. At that point, I discovered some of the "less obvious" features and only after that did I really get what a great package textmate is.
We humans are perfectly capable of being exposed to something and not realising how great it is. I find textmate to not shout its virtues from the rooftop, but like the woman you should marry, the more you get to know her the more your admiration grows.
I believe that all these companies should make short promotional quicktime movies showing how brilliantly they can be used. And yes, Alan, I paid for my licence and consider it to be great value for money.
Bruce,
Thanks for taking the time to post. You are very right in pointing out that "getting into" an application is a complex process that requires some time and thought. Would you care to share some of the tricks that made you appreciate TextMate more? I would be most in hearing your experience.
FJ
François,
I felt compelled to write and express my disagreement :-).
Frankly, with all due respect your post is a joke.
IMHO BBEdit is probably one of the least Mac-like (or more precisely OS X like) application!
And I've paid for all BBEdit upgrades since version 3.x in the mid 90 maybe.
BBEdit is indeed an *excellent* text editor.
But after forcing myself (it's really difficult to switch after 10 years) to use TextMate (and reading its excellent documentation), I do prefer TextMate hands down: I'm simply much more productive with it.
When compared to TextMate, BBEdit is really showing its age.
TextMate innovates at an incredibly rapid pace while BBEdit essentially stagnates (and has been for years, I'll just name two features: auto-completion and code folding).
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
= tmk =
PS: I'm curious to know in what ways you find TextMate "definitely not ready"?
tmk,
Thank you for taking the time to post your comments.
I do have to say that I have not been using BBEdit for ten years. In that regard, I did not apprehend the TextMate way of doing with so many years of acquired shortcuts, tips and thought processes. Your experience certainly is interesting and I would be curious to know more on what you mean by "forcing yourself".
As far as innovation goes, it seems to me BBEdit does evolve pretty steadily. It does not however evolve noisily and goes through extended beta periods that make it seem like it were moving along at a slower pace. TextMate on the opposite prefers to offer public betas, hence showing progress as it comes around. These are two different ways of proceeding and each have, that goes without saying, their positive and negative points.
FJ
"I am by no means trying to state which application users "should" use here, simply pointing out that two of the best selling, most talked-about text editors on the platform are of a different breed."
I think you misread my comment. I'm not even discussing which program is better. I never got into bbedit enough to give it a fair shot. My point was that regardless of which is better, I fail to see how bbedit is more mac like. It's the weakest part of your argument, and the one part that almost everyone seems to disagree with.
Tell me bbedit is more polished, more powerful, stable, whatever. But more mac like? Screen shots alone shoot that argument down.
Anyway, thanks for the column.
"From code to lists, through configuration files and quick notes, there is nothing BBEdit doesn't handle smoothly, reliably and quickly."
What about Ruby on Rails and BBEdit's limitation of only 4 syntax highlighting colors?
"TextMate is, compared to BBEdit, a bit of a joke: full of promise, brilliantly thought-through, but definitely not ready"
Not ready for what?
"BBEdit is a truly Mac application. It has windows, buttons, preferences, documentation, and a company to back it. TextMate is a UNIX application. It has commands, plugins, configuration files and a community to back it."
How is BBEdit more of a "mac" application? Many seem to feel that BBEdit is more OS 8 application while Textmate is more of an OS X application.
"In that, BBEdit ravishes me: there is a button for everything, a menu item per function but that comes at the cost of limited extendibility. I know many users who hate that and prefer an extremely supple text editor"
For a new user to either editor, do you think they would better off learning where every button in BBEDIT is and what its function is or learning how to add the functionalities they need in TextMate?
François,
Thanks for taking the time to answer (even though I'm not sure you addressed my PS :-).
Frankly, I do not thing that BBEdit really innovates. It does improve yes, but it does not really innovates IMHO. TextMate definitely does.
re: "forcing myself", I just meant to say that after having used BBEdit for so long, I know this program pretty well for my needs and I've fine-tuned a lot of my processes using it along the years to make it fit my way of working.
So the idea was why change if BBEdit already (mostly) met my needs?
But as I've been paying for BBEdit upgrades without giving it much though (mostly because I though it was totally worth supporting their great commitment to the Mac, they have a truly remarkable track record there), I was always somehow disappointed at how little they innovated in each release (I've mentioned two features I've been waiting for forever).
I gave TextMate a try in early 2005 but was totally unimpressed. But about six months later a colleague started to praise TextMate endlessly so I decided that I needed to give TM another try.
The problem is I'm the kind of person who does not generally approach computer stuff intuitively. About the first thing I try ti do when I first get acquainted to a new program and decide that I want to *try* to use it regularly is to RTFM. Thoroughly. Probably not the best way to approach it but that's how I tend to do it unless the program usage is totally obvious.
Well in the case of a text processor this obvious part is really thin :-).
And if I wanted to see the merits of TextMate I needed to start using it fulltime which in turn implied that I had to make the huge commitment of RTMF and getting to know the problem in a intimate enough fashion.
= tmk =
Anonymous,
I guess the reason we are disagreeing here is that we are not clear on what we mean by "Mac-like". Indeed, if one looks at toolbars or icons, TextMate is clearly more "Mac-like" than BBEdit — and it may, indeed, resemble Apple applications much more closely.
Yet, looking beyond the surface, I see TextMate as a shell-oriented application which, while perfectly honorable, is not what is traditionally seen as Mac-like — the Terminal almost didn't ship with Mac OS X. BBEdit enjoys pretty tight integration with the shell, of course, but it also employs more traditional metaphors and input methods — precise text fields, dialogs, palettes… It is also heavily AppleScriptable which allows it to integrate with many applications in a way that is dear to many Mac users. TextMate offers another set of features, more geared towards the UNIX-side of Mac OS X, which, while essential, I would not (yet?) call "Mac-like".
I hope this answers your question. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your original post.
FJ
Jimmy,
I actually know of Ruby on Rails developers who use BBEdit to work on their projects. Not being one myself, I can only defer to those who may be reading us to explain in greater detail why they choose to do so. And as far as highlighting colors go, four is about all I can keep track of so this does not seem to me to be a limitation — but two things: different people different brains and BBEdit knows a tad more than four colors if you take the additional options into account.
While complex, BBEdit is an application everybody can use at the most basic level. Open, type, print, sort lines, insert HTML tags. TextMate, as many users have pointed out, has a rather steep learning curve and requires intense reading of the documentation. Is it bad? No, certainly not, and powerful tools often require a learning process. It does however, in my opinion, show that TextMate lacks the bootstraps to help users get on board and get started with the application. Also, BBEdit comes with a full PDF manual, that is carefully written, laid out and composed, in addition to its online help, with a pretty simple tutorial, many references for auxiliary modules (Grep…): all in all, many little things TextMate still does not have. Again, that may not be of importance to you (or to me) but I believe it is to be taken into account when judging the degree of completeness of a software — even one for advanced users.
As far as BBEdit being a Mac application, please see my comments in the post above, as far as the above paragraph. I was not thinking of how BBEdit "looks" (this is just coating and varnishing) but how it integrates with other elements of the platform.
I do not believe my role as a software user is to add functionality to my application. Maybe that makes me out-fashioned but I see applications as providing a service to me and it is not my place to extend them — lest I think of myself as a contributor to an open source project or a member of a development team. Again, this may be an entirely different take on what being a "user" means.
Thanks for taking the time to post. I hope this answers your questions,
FJ
= tmk =,
You are most welcome for the reply, it is always a pleasure to hear from my readers.
I am sorry I did not address your PS: actually, I believe my post right above this one should answer it but, please, do ask if you still need me to elaborate on my view.
Innovating is a very elastic word and we could discuss for hours on end what it means. Innovating can mean making something smoother, easier, through the developing of a discreet feature or it can mean suggesting a workflow-shattering breakthrough. BBedit, to me, innovates in many ways, one of them being the honoring of Mac OS 9 structures with a definitely Mac OS X technology, something few applications manage to do — and something many users seem to overlook, while a large part of the community still clamors the "Mac OS 9 way was better". The bbedit command line tool was also a pretty nice addition, as was BBEdit's ability to integrate with SFTP servers, bring Grep to the level of the average user… TextMate does innovate, for sure, but in different ways. BBEdit being older, it is only natural it seems to introduce less "breakthroughs" but I still believe this, in a big part, is a misconception — frankly, who reads the BBEdit release notes when they come out?
In my experience, BareBones has been very responsive to my requests, but, again, this may vary depending on what one asks for or suggests. Also, different user bases will ask for different things so it is very possible your sensibilities are closer to those of the TextMate team.
Thanks for elaborating on your learning process, it is most interesting. I shamefully confess I spent days poking around BBEdit without looking at the manual and gradually got to understand its power by only observing — something I have never been able to to with TextMate. I have RTFM now and my only regret is not to having done it sooner, but I guess that is part of the fun.
The process you outline here is one I have recently followed with another BareBones application, Mailsmith. It took me time and a lot of lookups to switch to it but I do not regret it a single second — I know it will seem very weird to some. As far TextMate goes, I did not get that same feeling of something "being tough but being well worth it". This, of course, is only my personal opinion.
I hope this answers your questions. Again, please do not hesitate to ask should I have failed to address any of your concerns,
FJ
First, I'd like to give a thumbs-up to FJ for his forbearance. His responses to comments made by people whose courtesy subroutines clearly require extensive patching are admirable.
Second, Allan's reaction is understandable; FJ's usage of "joke" was unfortunate. The intention may not have been derogatory, but it certainly sounded that way.
Third, I'd like to take issue with those who think AppleScript support doesn't matter. I'm not a pundit, and I speak only for myself, but for this one person AS matters! I know that "real men" despise AS (with good reason), but it has two huge advantages -- it's easy to learn, even for the complete noob, and it's system-wide. Which means that I can learn AS by figuring out how to make iTunes rip with cdparanoia and import with LAME, and then apply the same techniques to make BBEdit munge massive chunks of text, insert InDesign tags, and create a print-ready document in a matter of minutes, with most of the work done by AppleScript.
Although a mere user, I find that a solid text editor is indispensable. I've tried TextMate, and it looks good, but its lack of AppleScript support is decisive. I'm sure its macro facility is powerful, but the last thing I want to do is to learn yet another macro tool. So, my dolefully short supply of cash remains parked with BBEdit...
Alex,
Thank you for your kind comments and for taking the time to post, I really do appreciate it.
Your experience with AppleScript is most interesting. I am glad to see there are such creative and productive uses of this wonderful language out there.
FJ
François,
I think that you miss the flavor of TextMate in your analysis. You say:
Speaking in terms of actual use, I don’t believe BBEdit or TextMate are fundamentally different
But I don't really think this is true. The way BBEdit works is to have most of its features built-in to the main menus, with user-customized features included, but not really integrated (i.e. you can organize them in menus, and even assign shortcuts, but they aren't really part of the core application).
With TextMate, user-customizable features make up 95% of the possibilities. The glory of this system is that, like with other open-source development models, new features and interfaces can be tinkered with by a far larger group of people, and so innovation happens at a much faster rate. But just as importantly, if some users decide that they would be better served by an alternate feature-set, all of these commands are transparently modifiable.
TextMate users are encouraged to tinker with the application, and get it set up exactly the way they like. I think this may be where you are coming from with the Mac-like vs. Unix-like point. But I think you are missing the point. Frankly, TextEdit is more "Mac-like" than either TextMate or BBEdit if you care about an easily-discoverable, limited feature set that is easy to understand and immediately obvious. Those working with markup or code, who come to BBEdit or TextMate because more simplistic editors don't meet their needs, are not the same crowd as general Mac users. And so, while TextMate asks more of its users, for those who spend their lives in front of a text editor, it is a small price to pay.
I really think you ought to give TextMate a more solid look. Maybe first read a bit through the excellent documentation, which is all online, as well as included in the application. Second, take a look through the commands, snippets, and macros defined for any languages in which you write code. Third, think about any repetitive bits of text you write, and I guarantee, with minimal effort, you can add the functionality you need to TextMate.
In any case, the reason you got so much flak for your article is that it doesn't really have much substantive content, and yet, unintentionally I think, comes across as very insulting of TextMate. Mixed in are words of "encouragement", so the whole thing leaves a very confused impression in the mind of the reader.
To write a real review, one would have to really analyze the strengths of the applications. As a TextWrangler user, but never BBEdit user, I really have no idea how Text Factories work. I haven't explored BBEdit's applescript dictionary, so I'm not exactly sure what's possible there either. I want a "review" to explain the use of these features. In a head-to-head comparison, I want screenshots, and real workflow ideas. These are such complicated pieces of software that pages of analysis are required, with pictures, and maybe even movies, backing it up. A few hundred nebulous words, with a few epithets tossed in, but nothing concrete to back them up, doesn't cut it. None of the statements you make are specific to either editor. Telling us the BBEdit has buttons and preferences and documentation, or that the applications are used for opening, editing, and highlighting text, leaves readers completely in the dark about the true function of these editors. The suggestion that TextMate is not ready for prime time, or that it has no company to back it up, or that its interface is reminiscent of Linux, does little to help. It is this combination of vague platitudes and insulting implications that causes Allan Odgård to label your review a travesty.
Jacob,
First of all, thank you for your comments.
While I appreciate the fact that user-contributed features can foster faster development, I have to question whether this always holds true. Indeed, while many users can "cook something up" that suits their needs, very few actually have the knowledge, time or simply desire, to run extensive QA testing, squash bugs and make their code as portable as can be. This, after all, is what distinguishes knowledgeable users from developers within the context of a certain application. I have, for example, built a blogging platform on top of BBEdit thanks to its extensive AppleScript dictionary. Does it count as a user-written feature? No, because that code, while working smoothly for me is not something Bare Bones would ship with their application. In that light, I believe true innovation implies steadiness and reliability, as tempting as it is to call us all innovators.
I do agree that TextEdit is more Mac-like than both BBedit and TextMate in terms of interface. Again, as I mentioned many times during the comments thread, it seems every user has its definition of "Mac-like" so this constitutes a very moving ground to discuss upon. You say that spending time to customize an application is a "small price to pay" and I agree with you to a certain extent. I still believe however in bootstrapping users, so to speak, and helping them enter the application, something I do not feel TextMate is currently doing despite its efforts — note the "feel" as every user will apprehend a new software in a different way.
I have given TextMate what I think is a solid look — and have followed a process nearly identical to the one you recommend. Now, I am sure I have tons more to learn on either application and haven't stopped by any means. I am sorry you feel my article has little "substantive content" but maybe it, indeed, is because it is not an article at all.
It seems what you are looking for is a suite of in-depth articles comparing or explaining the features of every application. This sure would be a fascinating topic and I would be delighted to work on it should my readers and my editor deem the topic of enough interest. Yet, allow me to stress what you are commenting on is not an article and was never meant to be. In that light, I believe your expectations are somehow misplaced.
I do hope readers will attempt to read beyond the fact an application "has buttons" and understand the broader message this sentence is to convey. If I have failed to make myself clear, I am sorry. I do believe that TextMate is not ready for prime time, I do believe it has no company to back it up and I do believe its interface is reminiscent of Linux. Whether that is of "help" I do not know as I am not really sure what I should be "helping". In any case, these comments aren't, I believe, insulting or disparaging in any way.
Allow me to refrain from commenting on my exchanges with Allan, as I treat correspondence with my readers as confidential material. I believe Allan misunderstood the nature of this entry, as I explained in my comments to him and in the follow-up blog entry.
Thanks again,
FJ
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned AlphaX. It may not be particularly Mac-like, but it has a very good text-editing engine, it has color-coding and convenient keyboard shortcuts for many languages, it provides emacs keystrokes if you want them, it's highly programmable (using TCL), it's very fast, and so on. I've been using it for years (HTML, LaTeX, Java, etc.) and although I checked out BBEdit from time to time, always found AlphaX preferable. (I haven't seriously tried TextMate yet.)