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

From: Richard Philips <>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:46:40 +0200


for what it is worth,

all features which were available to me in a closed form, I would gladly make available to everyone.
(of course, if Mitchell allowed me to do so).


On 07 Jun 2013, at 18:20, Robert <> wrote:

> 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
> this!)
> * 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 :-)
> Cheers,
> Robert
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> [8]
> [9]

You are subscribed to
To change subscription settings, send an e-mail to
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
Received on Sat 08 Jun 2013 - 11:46:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 09 Jun 2013 - 06:31:47 EDT