除了前面的回答之外，还有必要从开发过程中所做的选择的角度来澄清这两种产品之间的差异。

Sublime is binary compiled for the platform. Its core is written in C/C++ and a number of its features are implemented in Python, which is also the language used for extending it. Atom is written in Node.js/Coffeescript and runs under webkit, with Coffeescript being the extension language. Though similar in UI and UX, Sublime performs significantly better than Atom especially in "heavy lifting" like working with large files, complex SnR or plugins that do heavy processing on files/buffers. Though I expect improvements in Atom as it matures, design & platform choices limit performance.

The "closed" part of Sublime includes the API and UI. Apart from skins/themes and colourisers, the API currently makes it difficult to modify other aspects of the UI. For example, Sublime plugins can't interact with the sidebar, control or draw on the editing area (except in some limited ways eg. in the gutter) or manipulate the statusbar beyond basic text. Atom's "closed" part is unknown at the moment, but I get the sense it's smaller. Atom has a richer API (though poorly documented at present) with the design goal of allowing greater control of its UI. Being closely coupled with webkit offers numerous capabilities for UI feature enhancements not presently possible with Sublime. However, Sublime's extensions perform closer to native, so those that perform compute-intensive, highly repetitive or complex text manipulations in large buffers are feasible in Sublime.

Since more of Atom will be open, Github open-sourced Atom on May 6th. As a result it's likely that support and pace of development will be rapid. By contrast, Sublime's development has slowed significantly of late - but it's not dead. In particular there are a number of bugs, many quite trivial, that haven't been fixed by the developer. None are showstopping imo, but if you want something in rapid development with regular bugfixing and enhancements, Sublime will frustrate. That said, installable Atom packages for Windows and Linux are yet to be released and activity on the codebase seems to have cooled in the weeks before and since the announcement, according to Github's stats.

In terms of IDE functions, from a webdev perspective Atom will allow extensions to the point of approaching products like Webstorm, though none have appeared yet. It remains to be seen how Atom will perform with such "heavy" extensions, since the editor natively feels sluggish. Due to restrictions in the API and lack of underlying webkit, Sublime won't allow this level of UI customisation although the developer may extend the API to support such features in future. Again, Sublime's underlying performance allows for things that involve computational grunt; ST3's symbol indexing being an example that performs well even with big projects. And though Atom's UI is certainly modelled upon Sublime, some refinements are noticeably missing, such as Sublime's learning panels and tab-complete popups which weight the defaults in accordance with those you most use.

我认为这些产品是互补的。事实上，他们分享相似的视觉效果和按键只是增加了这一事实。在某些情况下，使用任何一种都有优势。目前，Sublime是一个成熟的产品，在所有三个平台上都具有相同的功能，并拥有丰富的插件集。Atom是新出生的孩子，他的五官会迅速长出来;它感觉还没有准备好生产，在性能方面有一些担忧。

[更新/编辑:2015年5月18日]

关于这两个编辑器自撰写上述文章以来的改进说明。

In addition to bugfixes and improvements to its core, Atom has experienced a rapid growth in third-party extensions, with autocomplete-plus becoming part of the standard Atom distribution. Extension quality varies widely and a particular irritation is the frequency by which unstable third party packages can crash the editor. Within the last year, Atom has moved to using React by way of shifting reflow/repaint activity to the GPU for performance reasons, significantly improving the responsiveness of the UI for typical editing actions (scrolling, cursor movement etc.). While this has markedly improved the feel of the editor, it still feels cumbersome for CPU intensive tasks as described above, and is still slow in startup. Apart from performance improvements, Atom feels significantly more stable across the board.

Development of Sublime has picked up again since Jan 2015, with bugfixes, some minor new features (tooltip API, build system improvements) and a major development in the form of a new yaml-based .sublime-syntax definition (to eventually replace the old xml .tmLanguage). Together with a custom regex engine which replaces Onigurama, the new system offers more potential for precise regex matching, is significantly faster (up to 4x) and can perform multiple matches in parallel. Apart from colouring syntax, Sublime uses these components for symbol indexing (goto definition etc.) and other language-aware features. In addition to further speeding up Sublime, particularly for large files, this feature should open up the potential for performant language-specific features such as code-refactoring etc.. Further 'big developments' are promised, though the author remains, as ever, tight lipped about them.

Atom是开源的(到现在已经有几个小时了)，而Sublime Text不是。

注意::

在Atom中，由于缓存系统的缺陷，在使用大文件时经常会发生数据丢失。

它已经被证明了无数次。

我尝试了Atom，它看起来真的很好，但有一个主要问题(至少在0.84版):

它不支持垂直选择Alt+拖动-这是每个现代代码编辑器必须的。

另一个区别是Sublime文本是一个闭源项目，而Atom源代码是/将是公开可用的——尽管Github不打算将其作为一个真正的开源项目发布。他们想要提供对代码的访问权限，而不是向贡献者开放代码。

Github公开了代码:http://blog.atom.io/2014/05/06/atom-is-now-open-source.html

除了前面的回答之外，还有必要从开发过程中所做的选择的角度来澄清这两种产品之间的差异。

Sublime is binary compiled for the platform. Its core is written in C/C++ and a number of its features are implemented in Python, which is also the language used for extending it. Atom is written in Node.js/Coffeescript and runs under webkit, with Coffeescript being the extension language. Though similar in UI and UX, Sublime performs significantly better than Atom especially in "heavy lifting" like working with large files, complex SnR or plugins that do heavy processing on files/buffers. Though I expect improvements in Atom as it matures, design & platform choices limit performance.

The "closed" part of Sublime includes the API and UI. Apart from skins/themes and colourisers, the API currently makes it difficult to modify other aspects of the UI. For example, Sublime plugins can't interact with the sidebar, control or draw on the editing area (except in some limited ways eg. in the gutter) or manipulate the statusbar beyond basic text. Atom's "closed" part is unknown at the moment, but I get the sense it's smaller. Atom has a richer API (though poorly documented at present) with the design goal of allowing greater control of its UI. Being closely coupled with webkit offers numerous capabilities for UI feature enhancements not presently possible with Sublime. However, Sublime's extensions perform closer to native, so those that perform compute-intensive, highly repetitive or complex text manipulations in large buffers are feasible in Sublime.

Since more of Atom will be open, Github open-sourced Atom on May 6th. As a result it's likely that support and pace of development will be rapid. By contrast, Sublime's development has slowed significantly of late - but it's not dead. In particular there are a number of bugs, many quite trivial, that haven't been fixed by the developer. None are showstopping imo, but if you want something in rapid development with regular bugfixing and enhancements, Sublime will frustrate. That said, installable Atom packages for Windows and Linux are yet to be released and activity on the codebase seems to have cooled in the weeks before and since the announcement, according to Github's stats.

In terms of IDE functions, from a webdev perspective Atom will allow extensions to the point of approaching products like Webstorm, though none have appeared yet. It remains to be seen how Atom will perform with such "heavy" extensions, since the editor natively feels sluggish. Due to restrictions in the API and lack of underlying webkit, Sublime won't allow this level of UI customisation although the developer may extend the API to support such features in future. Again, Sublime's underlying performance allows for things that involve computational grunt; ST3's symbol indexing being an example that performs well even with big projects. And though Atom's UI is certainly modelled upon Sublime, some refinements are noticeably missing, such as Sublime's learning panels and tab-complete popups which weight the defaults in accordance with those you most use.

我认为这些产品是互补的。事实上，他们分享相似的视觉效果和按键只是增加了这一事实。在某些情况下，使用任何一种都有优势。目前，Sublime是一个成熟的产品，在所有三个平台上都具有相同的功能，并拥有丰富的插件集。Atom是新出生的孩子，他的五官会迅速长出来;它感觉还没有准备好生产，在性能方面有一些担忧。

[更新/编辑:2015年5月18日]

关于这两个编辑器自撰写上述文章以来的改进说明。

In addition to bugfixes and improvements to its core, Atom has experienced a rapid growth in third-party extensions, with autocomplete-plus becoming part of the standard Atom distribution. Extension quality varies widely and a particular irritation is the frequency by which unstable third party packages can crash the editor. Within the last year, Atom has moved to using React by way of shifting reflow/repaint activity to the GPU for performance reasons, significantly improving the responsiveness of the UI for typical editing actions (scrolling, cursor movement etc.). While this has markedly improved the feel of the editor, it still feels cumbersome for CPU intensive tasks as described above, and is still slow in startup. Apart from performance improvements, Atom feels significantly more stable across the board.

Development of Sublime has picked up again since Jan 2015, with bugfixes, some minor new features (tooltip API, build system improvements) and a major development in the form of a new yaml-based .sublime-syntax definition (to eventually replace the old xml .tmLanguage). Together with a custom regex engine which replaces Onigurama, the new system offers more potential for precise regex matching, is significantly faster (up to 4x) and can perform multiple matches in parallel. Apart from colouring syntax, Sublime uses these components for symbol indexing (goto definition etc.) and other language-aware features. In addition to further speeding up Sublime, particularly for large files, this feature should open up the potential for performant language-specific features such as code-refactoring etc.. Further 'big developments' are promised, though the author remains, as ever, tight lipped about them.