Pros of TextMate

• More extensive language support and bundle system
• Advanced features like project management and macros
• Larger and more active community, resulting in more extensions and themes

Cons of TextMate

• Slower development cycle and less frequent updates
• Higher resource usage, potentially impacting performance on older machines
• Steeper learning curve for new users due to its complexity

Code Comparison

TextMate's bundle system allows for powerful customizations:

#!/usr/bin/env ruby18

print "Content-type: text/plain\n\n"
print "Hello, World!"

CotEditor's simpler approach focuses on ease of use:

import Foundation

print("Hello, World!")

Summary

TextMate offers more advanced features and customization options, making it suitable for power users and developers who require extensive language support. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve and potentially higher resource usage. CotEditor, on the other hand, provides a more streamlined and user-friendly experience, focusing on simplicity and ease of use for general text editing tasks. The choice between the two depends on the user's specific needs and preferences.

Pros of Atom

• Highly extensible with a large ecosystem of packages and themes
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Built-in Git integration

Cons of Atom

• Slower startup time and performance compared to CotEditor
• Higher memory usage, especially with multiple packages installed
• Development has been discontinued by GitHub

Code Comparison

CotEditor (Swift):

override func viewDidLoad() {
    super.viewDidLoad()
    textView.font = NSFont.monospacedSystemFont(ofSize: 12, weight: .regular)
    textView.isAutomaticQuoteSubstitutionEnabled = false
}

Atom (JavaScript):

atom.workspace.observeTextEditors(editor => {
  editor.setFontFamily('Menlo');
  editor.setFontSize(12);
  editor.setSoftWrapped(true);
});

Summary

CotEditor is a lightweight, native macOS text editor focused on simplicity and performance. Atom, while more feature-rich and extensible, has been discontinued and may have performance issues on older hardware. CotEditor is ideal for quick edits and macOS-specific workflows, while Atom offers cross-platform compatibility and a wider range of features through its package ecosystem.

Pros of MacDown

• Specialized for Markdown editing with live preview
• Supports various Markdown flavors and extensions
• Includes export options to HTML and PDF

Cons of MacDown

• Limited to Markdown files, less versatile for general text editing
• Fewer text manipulation features compared to CotEditor
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower development

Code Comparison

MacDown (Objective-C):

- (void)viewDidLoad {
    [super viewDidLoad];
    self.editorView.string = @"# Welcome to MacDown";
    [self.previewView setNeedsDisplay:YES];
}

CotEditor (Swift):

override func viewDidLoad() {
    super.viewDidLoad()
    textView.string = "Welcome to CotEditor"
    textView.font = NSFont.systemFont(ofSize: 14)
}

Summary

MacDown is a specialized Markdown editor with live preview, while CotEditor is a more versatile text editor with broader language support. MacDown excels in Markdown-specific features, but CotEditor offers more general text editing capabilities. The code comparison shows their different focus areas, with MacDown initializing a Markdown preview and CotEditor setting up a general text view.

Pros of Brackets

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Built-in live preview for web development
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for customization

Cons of Brackets

• Slower performance, especially with large files
• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Limited syntax highlighting for non-web languages

Code Comparison

CotEditor (Swift):

override func viewDidLoad() {
    super.viewDidLoad()
    textView.delegate = self
    textView.font = NSFont.monospacedSystemFont(ofSize: 12, weight: .regular)
}

Brackets (JavaScript):

define(function (require, exports, module) {
    "use strict";
    var EditorManager = brackets.getModule("editor/EditorManager");
    var editor = EditorManager.getCurrentFullEditor();
    editor.setFont("SourceCodePro-Regular", 12);
});

Both editors allow for customization of the text view, but they use different programming languages and approaches. CotEditor uses Swift and directly modifies the text view properties, while Brackets uses JavaScript and relies on module-based architecture for editor customization.

CotEditor is a native macOS application, offering better performance and integration with the operating system. Brackets, on the other hand, provides cross-platform compatibility and a more extensive set of features for web development, including live preview and a wide range of extensions.

Pros of Notepad++

• More extensive plugin ecosystem and customization options
• Supports a wider range of programming languages and file formats
• Multi-platform support (Windows, Linux via Wine)

Cons of Notepad++

• Less modern and intuitive user interface
• Slower development cycle and less frequent updates
• Windows-centric design, limited native support for other operating systems

Code Comparison

CotEditor (Swift):

extension NSTextView {
    func highlightSelectedString() {
        guard let selectedRange = self.selectedRanges.first as? NSRange else { return }
        self.layoutManager?.addTemporaryAttribute(.backgroundColor, value: NSColor.yellow, forCharacterRange: selectedRange)
    }
}

Notepad++ (C++):

void Notepad_plus::highlightSelectedText() {
    ScintillaEditView *pEditView = getCurrentEditView();
    if (!pEditView) return;
    
    int start = pEditView->execute(SCI_GETSELECTIONSTART);
    int end = pEditView->execute(SCI_GETSELECTIONEND);
    pEditView->execute(SCI_INDICATORSETSTYLE, SCE_UNIVERSAL_FOUND_STYLE, INDIC_HIGHLIGHT);
    pEditView->execute(SCI_INDICATORSETFORE, SCE_UNIVERSAL_FOUND_STYLE, 0xFFFF00);
    pEditView->execute(SCI_INDICATORFILLRANGE, start, end - start);
}