Talk:Atom (text editor)

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

JavaScript Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

roadmap for version-1?

?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Notability and third-party sources

Most of the sources given here are primary sources. TEDickey (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C code in Atom

The user Filip Jirsák is preventing me from adding, that Atom has C code. I referenced a pull request, but he undoes my contributions and calls it 'vandalism'.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom_(text_editor)&oldid=766333002

The source, that Atom has C code: https://github.com/atom-archive/atom-patch/pull/12

--79.239.128.236 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the User talk. He seems to be some kind of troll, giving wikipedia a bad reputation. Even the announcement mentions the C code. --79.239.128.236 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about this, so I checked. That github link is to `atom-archive`, unmaintained old code/projects; I checked the actual git source in the atom/atom github repo, and there's no C source in it. (You can `git clone` this easily enough and check yourself.) Now, of course, Atom is built on Electron, which is built w/ C and Javascript, so there is C in the "stack". But Atom itself does not have any C source files. Michael (talk|contrib) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Atom Editor

I do not want to start any flame war, so I will not post anything pro or contra. :) To me as a visitor though, it is interesting how fast/slow Atom is, and much more importantly so, in ongoing releases, how the speed may become better/worse as time passes by. So it would be nice if the main article about Atom here on wikipedia could also eventually add a paragraph about speed, be it speed comparison or so. It does not have to be only that editor, for example, several editors could be compared into another wikipedia article, and then a link to that article could be used from within the Atom article (and other editors that are compared). I think that quite some people may be interested in that comparison, but of course it has to be objective and comparable. 2A02:8388:1641:3580:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies prohibit original research, so this information can only be added if a reliable source publishes a speed comparison. Unfortunately, many published benchmarks are done on self-published blogs, which aren't considered reliable sources. If you find a comparison published in a reliable source, feel free to add it into the article. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Github's Subsidiary Status, and veracity of Microsoft FOSS tag

Github is a very well known company, and open sourced Atom before its acquisition by Microsoft. One editor in particular is exceptionally interested in crediting every software possible to Microsoft even those that aren't Microsoft Software, and even when it's a copy right violation: [Apache_Helix] [Apache_Kafka] [Apache_Samza] [Atom] My proposal is that this was open sourced before Github's acquisition by Microsoft, so it was not open-sourced by Microsoft, Github itself is very well known, such being the case, the Microsoft FOSS tag get removed, as does the reference to Microsoft in the Developer Section. I'm also going to point out that if you search Apache Beam, Apache AirFlow, TensorFlow, Pytorch, Hadoop, and now Kafka you'll see no Google FOSS nor Facebook FOSS nor LinkedIn FOSS, nor AirBnB FOSS so this would also be keeping in line with the standard on other pages. 179.12.158.42 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No "was"

Atom is freely licensed, and will continue to be available. The article shouldn't treat it like a lost film or a torn down building. 200.58.135.162 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Changed the verb tense per MOS:TENSE TappyTurtle (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsar editor

There was a section on here recently reverted by user @Anton.bersh about the Pulsar text editor. The reason for the removal was that it was "non-notable [...] supported only by the project's own announcement". To me it seems somewhat unecessary and unproductive to just remove this line directly without trying to improve it or tag it as needing other sources (such as the current tag in place for Zed).

As somebody involved with the project I feel there is a conflict for me to add it back in myself but I don't think the project is "non-notable" at this point. There are a number of secondary sources talking about it and it has been steadily gaining traction as the only note-worthy and actively developed fork of Atom with a goal to keeping the project alive including all of its community developed packages. The main website is at https://pulsar-edit.dev/ but below is a list of other sources talking about it. At time of writing the project has 1.7k stars on GitHub and is still growing.

Examples of other sources (articles, forums, videos etc.): https://news.itsfoss.com/pulsar-editor/ https://alternativeto.net/software/pulsar-or-pulsar-edit-/about/ https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/githubs-sunsetting-of-atom-arrives-while-community-fork-aims-to-keep-it-alive https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/12/17/0356207/as-github-retires-atom-open-source-pulsar-continues-its-legacy https://www.linuxcapable.com/how-to-install-pulsar-ide-on-manjaro-linux/ https://connectwww.com/pulsar-hackable-text-editor/65289/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA1c_S6Zsu4 Daeraxa (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daeraxa thanks for your comment. There are a few things to consider:

- Thanks for acknowledging the conflict of interest and looking for advice on this talk page. You are welcome to make a edit request: write a comment with the exact text you would like to see in the article and someone might be able to review it and add to the article.

- The provided sources don't really provide any commentary about Pulsar, they either report on Atom shutdown and just acknowledge Pulsar's existence or are just guides which provide installation steps, and one is a YouTube video which is typically not considered reliable source unless the published content was produced by an organization considered one.

- An IP editor added a more muted statement about Pulsar (but did not cite a good source, I'll add one)

- It may be too soon to write about Pulsar on Wikipedia (both a dedicated article and extended coverage in other articles) however Pulsar is still early in its life cycle so it may acquire sufficient coverage later on

- Good luck creating open source software! Anton.bersh (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this a bit more and realized there is not really any decent source to point to. All coverage I could find is basically a derivative of Atom's fame and there is no real connection between Atom and Pulsar whatsoever. All coverage I could find seems to be basically prompted by the Pulsar team reaching out to various media organizations asking to publish something. The author of YouTube video linked to above at 4:25 literally says that he launches it just to "verify that it does actually launch" and then that he "was never [an] Atom user" so can not say much about either. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@107.144.211.143 I recently removed a link to GitHub which you added to the article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources for clarification about which sources are considered suitable for articles on Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment below if you have any further questions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]