The initial financial risk of the develop first, market later model seems to be greatly mitigated by the kickstarter approach. The market can be validated in real terms, with real money, before a developer has to take the plunge. Striking out on your own was (perhaps) never so easy.
The new model may very well liberate many developers from the financial shackles that bind them to their day jobs; it may create more stories of the Marco Arment lineage: independent, flexible, balanced.
With each new successful story like Light Table that comes along, the more convinced others will become that independent software development as a living may very well be possible for themselves as well.
One of the big budget endeavours will fail to come to fruition, and the entire internet will throw a gasket, and then we will see if the model is sustainable without having contractual obligations from the fundee.
I think $200k is still low enough that the market and product needs to be vetted. Pebble at $10M isn't such. Only they can screw it up themselves at this point.
I think most people on kickstarter expect and enjoy when the project author "celebrates" the reached goal with them. In addition the news about the 2nd demo is remarkable.
Btw any forecasts as to when the demo is going to go public?
It'll go out before the kickstarter is done. I'm trying to finish it up in the next 10ish days.
What if the criticism is correct?
So suppose lighttable adds support for Android development. How exactly would lighttable help me? What exactly can I do with it that I cannot do right now?
Are you guys backing this up just because it looks visually different? Is it because the languages it supports just don't have good tools for like Java does? Or am I missing something obvious here?
Lighttable strikes me as a possible move back towards a full IDE environment. A lot of the things shown here are already available on Eclipse but it's presented here with a much cleaner visual design.
The one thing Eclipse doesn't do is the "live" debugging with value substituting. I do think that would be very, very helpful. I could see that being implemented as an Eclipse plugin as well and it would be extremely useful in certain cases.
That's the first video I found on that stream. Note that it's about 50 seconds in that he starts actually editing the code; he edits the slide friction before going up the slope. There's a better one of notch designing a dungeon game for some competition where he's writing the rendering code and it's changing as he does it.
That's eclipse right?
You can do the same in visual studio as well, just need to have 'edit and continue' enabled. It's one of these magic things that you either know about or don't, but generally if you're a web developer you'll never have needed it.
I'm not sure what you mean by We're not talking 'debug' here; as technically that's in debug mode when it's running at the same time as coding.
Functionally it seems no different to me. Notice how the 'draw player' function in the clojure example actually contains the variable for color, it's not a pre-initialized variable. I wonder whether storing and changing that elsewhere would have resulted in a colour change (logically I would guess no otherwise the game state would contantly reset).
1. I don't need the docs all the time as I've already got that given I use a statically typed language 80% of the time and IDEs actually already do that
2. Most of that other stuff is already available in Eclipse and Visual Studio
So for me it's mostly shrugs what are you all so impressed by?
I just imagined all the time I'll save by never stepping through with a debugger again.
(webnumbr looks really nice for watching random pages that don't have dedicated trackers, though)
What I am trying to say I guess is that, if the project separated the approach and editing aspects of coding, and then integrated the approach aspect with already existing editors (or an API/protocol of sorts, like what X server is to the various WM/DE); I believe it will turn into something really interesting.
For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with gits1225. I think will be very hard for you and your team to even remotely approach the editing facilities offered by Emacs or Vim, seeing that these facilities have evolved over decades--especially in a web editor which is subject to a number of constraints.
If your system could somehow (again, eventually) augment these editors--or, if you prefer, be augmented by them--rather than attempt to replace them, then in my mind this would be a win-win for everybody.
Maybe do something like use Ctrl-B as a way to issue keyboard commands to Light Table or break out of an editor window.
Needless to say, I'm in for $50.
Is there definitive information on this? How will the fund-raising proceed, in a logistics/mechanics sense if this is true?
I guess my concern is that that's pretty far down the page and since the the fact that the $200K goal has been met is prominent, that message might not get across very well.
Perhaps the Kickstarter model could be adapted to fund maintenance and bugfixes too. Popular open source projects always have the problem that their bug trackers get spammed with passionate complaints from well-meaning but frustrated users. I'm imagining a public bug tracker where users can pay to raise the priority of their favorite bugs. Not necessarily a "bug bounty" system, but just a way of raising money for the project overall while simultaneously giving frustrated users a productive outlet and reducing spam.
I was working for such an organization a few years ago. On top of that, one of the founders would even post "anti-communist" rants against Open Source on the company intranet.
Also, since when has having a closed source ever prevented piracy anyway?
Lots of BigCo are paranoid about the support contract thing. Sometimes partners and investors want to see support contracts in place as a security blanket. In those cases, the support contract for a "well designed" IDE in your scenario is just free money.
JetBrains seems to do alright selling IDEs. In their case, I think people pay for the value, and they continue to pay for upgrades. Support is through the web, so it fits in with revenue commensurate with value.
People always respond with "Red Hat" in this argument and it never makes any sense. Why doesn't anybody think anymore?
Seems reasonable: you pay for convenience.
If your tool is dependably correct and responsive, it will be a classic.
To what extent will this be open source?
I wouldn't rely on a text editor that can't be improved and changed by the community.
Besides, it seems to run inside the browser, and most browsers (even for a single tab) consume quite some RAM.
Good luck, nonetheless!