Pros of Atom

• Larger and more active community, resulting in more extensions and frequent updates
• Built-in package manager for easy installation of plugins and themes
• More extensive documentation and learning resources

Cons of Atom

• Heavier resource usage, potentially slower performance on older hardware
• Steeper learning curve for customization compared to LightTable
• Discontinued by GitHub in December 2022, though community forks exist

Code Comparison

LightTable:

(ns lt.objs.editor.pool
  (:require [lt.object :as object]
            [lt.objs.editor :as editor]
            [lt.objs.command :as cmd]))

Atom:

const {CompositeDisposable} = require('atom')

class MyPackage {
  constructor() {
    this.subscriptions = new CompositeDisposable()
  }
}

The code snippets show different programming languages and approaches. LightTable uses ClojureScript, while Atom uses JavaScript. This reflects their architectural differences and target audiences.

Both editors are extensible and customizable, but Atom's larger ecosystem provides more options for developers. LightTable offers a unique "live coding" experience, which may appeal to certain users. However, Atom's broader adoption and extensive plugin library make it a more versatile choice for many developers, despite its recent discontinuation.

Pros of Visual Studio Code

• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Extensive marketplace with a wide range of extensions
• Built-in Git integration and debugging tools

Cons of Visual Studio Code

• Heavier resource usage, especially for larger projects
• Steeper learning curve for customization and advanced features

Code Comparison

LightTable:

(ns lt.objs.editor.pool
  (:require [lt.object :as object]
            [lt.objs.editor :as editor]
            [lt.objs.command :as cmd]))

Visual Studio Code:

import * as vscode from 'vscode';

export function activate(context: vscode.ExtensionContext) {
    console.log('Congratulations, your extension "helloworld" is now active!');
}

LightTable focuses on Clojure-based development, while Visual Studio Code uses TypeScript for its extension API. Visual Studio Code offers a more structured approach to extension development with built-in types and interfaces.

Visual Studio Code has gained significant popularity due to its robust features and extensive ecosystem. However, LightTable's unique approach to live coding and interactive development environment still appeals to some developers, particularly those working with Clojure or seeking a more minimalist IDE.

Pros of Brackets

• Larger and more active community, with more frequent updates and contributions
• Built-in Live Preview feature for real-time web development
• Extensive library of extensions and themes available

Cons of Brackets

• Heavier resource usage, potentially slower on older hardware
• More complex codebase, which can make it harder for new contributors
• Primarily focused on web development, less versatile for other languages

Code Comparison

Brackets (JavaScript):

define(function (require, exports, module) {
    "use strict";
    var CommandManager = require("command/CommandManager");
    var Commands       = require("command/Commands");
    var Menus          = require("command/Menus");
});

LightTable (ClojureScript):

(ns lt.objs.sidebar.command
  (:require [lt.object :as object]
            [lt.objs.command :as cmd]
            [lt.objs.keyboard :as keyboard]
            [lt.util.dom :as dom]))

Both projects use modular architecture, but Brackets uses AMD-style JavaScript modules, while LightTable uses ClojureScript namespaces. Brackets' codebase is generally more verbose and complex, reflecting its larger feature set and broader scope.

Pros of IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition

• More comprehensive IDE with a wider range of features and language support
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better integration with build tools and version control systems

Cons of IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition

• Heavier resource usage and slower startup time
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Less focus on live coding and immediate feedback

Code Comparison

IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition:

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello, World!");
    }
}

Light Table:

(ns hello-world.core)

(defn -main [& args]
  (println "Hello, World!"))

Light Table focuses on a more minimalist approach with live coding capabilities, while IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition offers a full-featured IDE experience. Light Table's design emphasizes immediate feedback and a clean interface, making it easier for beginners to get started. However, IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition provides more robust tools for larger projects and complex development workflows.

The code comparison showcases the different languages and paradigms each IDE primarily supports. Light Table is often associated with Clojure and functional programming, while IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition is known for its strong Java support and object-oriented programming capabilities.

Pros of TextMate

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Larger community and ecosystem of bundles/plugins
• Native macOS application with deep system integration

Cons of TextMate

• Limited to macOS platform
• Less modern UI and feature set compared to newer editors
• Development pace has slowed in recent years

Code Comparison

TextMate (Ruby):

class TM_Executor
  def run(cmd)
    TextMate::Executor.run(cmd) do |str, type|
      case type
      when :out then print str
      when :err then print str
      end
    end
  end
end

LightTable (ClojureScript):

(behavior ::on-close
          :triggers #{:close}
          :reaction (fn [this]
                      (object/raise this :destroy)
                      (tabs/rem! this)))

Summary

TextMate is a well-established macOS-only text editor with a rich ecosystem, while LightTable is a newer, cross-platform editor with a more modern approach. TextMate excels in macOS integration and community support, but LightTable offers a more flexible and customizable environment. The code examples showcase TextMate's Ruby-based architecture versus LightTable's ClojureScript foundation, reflecting their different design philosophies.