I got a beta of the Atom editor soon after its initial release. The first thing that I decided to do was to add support for the Dylan language.

As we had a Textmate bundle available, this was an easy process:

apm init -p ~/.atom/packages/language-dylan \ -c https://github.com/textmate/dylan.tmbundle

This was the start of a pleasurable experience with Atom. Creating and publishing a new package was easy and the command line tools were easy to use (and documented). After just a couple of minutes, I had a package that provided basic syntax highlighting and code folding for Dylan. It also worked on any Dylan file that I opened, unlike using our Textmate bundle in SublimeText which would occasionally hang on some files (while Textmate was fine). How's that for extensibility? :)

Next up, I decided to improve upon our new Dylan package. So I added support for auto-indenting and code snippets. This too was straight forward and easy.

As a comparison, I've also worked in the past with some other Dylan hackers on a plugin for IntelliJ to provide Dylan language support. While many things in IntelliJ are relatively easy to do, they all involve a lot of boilerplate, conflicting or missing bits of documentation, and a lot of toil overall. That's not to say Atom's documentation is perfect though. One downside is that I did these extensions by looking at other language packages as the documentation for some of these things is not yet written.

While API documentation looks decent so far, documentation on all of the things that are supported or not when converting a Textmate bundle would be nice. Do we need to customize smart matching of things like quotes, parentheses and brackets? (Seemingly not.) How exactly does code folding work and do we need the same stuff that we had in Textmate / Sublime Text? (Not sure yet.)

Common Criticisms I've also noticed a number of common criticisms when the subject of Atom is brought up. Privacy Atom defaults to sending metrics on usage to Google. There's no dialog at startup to prompt about this and I didn't notice anything in the initial experience that mentioned this. It can be disabled in the preferences, but I think that GitHub should consider allowing users to opt in or out via a dialog on first launch. It would also be nice to have an idea of what sort of metrics are being collected. Another Browser Editor? Why Not Something Native? I don't view Atom (or LightTable) as "browser editors". You don't fire up your web browser and go to them. They're applications that happen to re-use the browser environment as a cross-platform rendering and UI framework. By using the browser, they get to leverage a lot of great tools and capabilities: Chrome's DevTools for profiling, debugging, browsing the DOM.

Strong layout and rendering capabilities.

Already cross-platform at the core. (Clearly there's a lot of other code that needs to be made portable.)

A strong and decently performing language implementation. But as for the concern that it isn't native... How is emacs any more or less native than Atom? Large parts of emacs are written in Emacs Lisp while large parts of Atom are written in JavaScript. The emacs UI doesn't really look or feel native on many platforms and they carry their own rendering and layout code around with them. The focus is on providing us with a tool and a framework for building tools and Atom appears to be on a track to do a decent job of that. Is This Just a Sublime Text Clone? Visually and at first glance, many aspects of Atom look like they're cloned from Sublime Text. However, many of the underlying parts clearly are not: Built-in package management and publishing tools that work well.

The APIs appear to be larger and more flexible.

More parts of the editor as a whole are plugins and accessible to developers. What Does "Hackable" Mean? What does it really mean that Atom is a hackable editor? How is Sublime Text with its API and ability to be scripted in Python not as hackable? I think the answer here lies in a couple of points: Many core parts of the editor are actually plugins and available in source form to be hacked upon.

Having the Developer Tools available makes it easy to poke at something in the editor and debug it. Is It Worth All of the Hype? Who really cares? If you find it useful and usable, then great! If not, there are tons of other choices out there, open or closed. GitHub has created a strong offering and we have yet to see how it will evolve, what sort of community will grow up around it, how it will be used.