Re: [code] [textadept] Officially Supported Add-ons?

From: Robert <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:20:35 +0200

Hi Mitchell,

here are my two cent...
I am with Ryan I guess, feeling kind of unsure about it, here's why:
I don't think there are very many features that could be "packaged" in
this model, tabs being an obvious one, but how much would people pay
for such an add-on? Editors like BBedit, Textmate or Sublime Text cost
from $50 to $70, so how much could one charge for an alternative
download of Textadept with tabs?

The other features you mentioned like regex search or spell checking
would certainly be nice to have well integrated, but they can
reasonably easily be implemented with Textadept as is - spell check
has been available once and I had a simple ack-wrapper in my common
module which made Perl's regex search easily available (it's still
there - I just haven't updated it yet). This is probably what makes me
feel most uneasy about the idea of closed source add-ons. I don't want
to be in situation to "compete" with them.

I would be fully supportive of the model of raising a specific amount
for releasing a feature or add-on as open source you otherwise have
only little interest or time to work on, and think that this model has
been very successful in the open source world. There is a site named
Bountysource [1], which seems to operate on a similar model.
Interestingly, almost $400 are set for "backing" a split view feature
for Textmate 1 [2].
There have also been crowd-funding drives on Kickstarter or Indiegogo,
e.g. recently Tern.js [3] or getting schema migration into Django core
[4]., that have been quite successful and allow the developers to
spend a significant amount of time to work on them. Also the
aforementioned LuaJIT model seems to work quite well.
Also, I don't see why the sponsorship model wouldn't be applicable for
add-ons not part of the regular main release.

In any case I hope that the beginning of this mail didn't come off too
negatively and here are some other ideas how money for the development
of Textadept could be raised:
* Printed (or e-booked) documentation
This has already been a way for open source fund raising, so how about
a print version of Textadept's source code (and documentation)? I
would like to read the source in this form (and have already studied
it extensively), maybe added with some comments (from you) and a
recommended reading order like Mike Pall once wrote for the Lua source
(probably a bit more detailed though)[5]. (I'd be happy to help build
* Gittip
Gittip [6] is a site to give small weekly cash gifts. As it is quite
new it's still growing and changing but I like quite a few of its
features and ideas. One can give as little as $0.25 a week to a
maximum of $24, so nobody gains too much (potential) influence in a
project. It's anonymous so one does not know who is giving money, also
the money a person receives is public, so nobody is likely to "get
rich". People can also write how much they would like to make to cover
hosting costs or working days, some examples from the Top-10 receivers
are Readthedocs [7], JSFiddle [8] or the SQLAlchemy developer [9].
* Donations or specific fund raising goals
Pretty obvious probably and Textadept once had a donation button - I
could imagine that yearly or specific funding drives to cover hosting
costs, help make time for development or buying hard- or software for
testing on all the supported platforms might be more successful than a
simple donate button.

That's it... thanks for reading and for all the time you spent on Textadept :-)


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Mitchell <> wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
> I fear my original intent behind this proposal was misunderstood. I am not
> out to profit from Textadept. It will forever remain free and open-source. I
> am as committed to improving it now as I was 6 years ago when I started the
> project.
> I have a vision with Textadept: fast, minimalist, and ridiculously
> extensible. Many feature requests I get are not consistant with this vision;
> naturally everyone has their own. I would like to reach some sort of middle
> ground here, and the only way I see it is through these separate add-ons:
> each user can pick and choose their preferred features to tailor Textadept
> to their vision.
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Ryan Pusztai wrote:
>> Would the add-ons all be separate?
> Yes. Since I don't want them in the official release, they would have to be
> offered separately.
>> Would you be charging a one-time charge or a periodic update charge?
> It would be a one time charge with supported updates.
>> Would the source for the add-ons be opensource?
> No, the add-ons would likely be closed-source. Lua modules would have an API
> available.
>> Have you thought about "sponsoring" features? Where users would pay for
>> you
>> to develop the feature. After you complete it the feature would just be
>> part of the release for everyone else. I have seen the LuaJit developer
>> really make this model work well. Thoughts?
> Again, these add-ons would not make it to the official release so that
> method of "sponsorship" does not apply.
> Cheers,
> Mitchell
> --
> You are subscribed to
> To change subscription settings, send an e-mail to
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to

You are subscribed to
To change subscription settings, send an e-mail to
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
Received on Fri 07 Jun 2013 - 12:20:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat 08 Jun 2013 - 06:32:56 EDT