+1,271
posted by Michał Pasieka , updated 2 months ago , 168
It should be possible to print files
Vote
+88
This would be very nice to have. Currently when I want to print something I have open in Sublime, I copy-and-paste to Windows Notepad to get it printed -- a decidedly suboptimal workflow.
+22
Only 10 votes? Seems like such a fundamental feature of a text editor. 
+18
Yes, please add this feature. This is a fundamental feature for a text editor to have.
+18
Definitely a fundamental feature, please vote for this. For those of us that use Sublime for note taking and non-coding related tasks printing is a must.
-6
What would the hotkey be though?

I wondered why goto anything was ctrl+p and now that I know it can't print I may have to hold off on switching to this.
+9
Have switched to using Sublime Text for pretty much everything now. When to print the other day and OH NO!

No need to assign a hotkey IMO. Used rarely enough that as long as it's on the file menu somewhere no problemo.
+23

Please, add support for printing. It's a basic feature.

-15
We print things because we need to punch out the holes and feed them into the card reader.
+15
I would buy a license if it had printing capabilties, even as simple as what any "Notepad" applications gives us. (If I had a preference, the abilty to do a selection print so the small code excerpt I wanted didn't kill an entire forest of paper.)
-54
MAN I hate when people say crap like this.  Printing!?  Really!?  It has a damn python API for god's sake... whatever, one less cheapskate using an excellent product.
+25
Well either you're volunteering for producing a Print function or you're just trolling. Not everyone is using this as purely a code editor, why not have the ability to Print as a standard function? This is a valid feature request and although I've bought the product it would have also affected my decision if I'd known about it.
-23
Woah, now, that's just mean.  I don't think Mr. Kraxner is trolling!
+3
Colinta is right, I'm not a troll. I was just stating (in a poor way) that I would have purchased a license without a doubt, but I was holding out for tool that does as much as possible without the need for an external app to "just print". I've spent the past 3 weeks using SublimeText2 to help me with manual firewall configuration manipulation. I found the builtin reflex and ease of use to push me closer to buying a license. Printing is just one of those things that will take time to die off.

If I had the ability (knowledge and time) to write a plugin, I would in a heartbeat. I apologize if I offended, I was not trying to be mean.

Thanks.
+8
I'm pretty sure lil demon was arguing in support of Joe Kraxner, and against colinta's rather harsh initial response, when he wrote

  

This is a valid feature request and although I've bought the product it would have also affected my decision if I'd known about it.
+4
Indeed ... the comment was directed at Colinta not Kraxner. I think Joe Kraxners point is perfectly valid. Print is important.
+14
If and when you *do* add printing, please take syntax highlighting into account.  As an option would be nice, and the ability to select a new color scheme for it (printing a color scheme like zenburn would take some ink!)
+7
For me, being able to print is absolutely essential for a text editor. This missing functionality is definitely keeping me from buying a license.
+4
I would really like if we were able to print directly from sublimetext2 or at least create a nice PDF with syntax highlighting and line numbers (if wanted), that would make ST2 the only editor needed =)
I need printing features to print my semaphore flags
-29
Disagree.

If you need to print something open the file in a tool that prints. It's trivial to do so.

Since I have something over 10 tools that can print I don't need jps to put any time or energy into a feature that does something I might want maybe 5 times a year and load up ST2 with bloat I don't care about and reduces its reliable cross platform performance.

It took me more than 6 months to even realise print wasn't there and I just went, "Yep makes sense. ST2 doesn't need print." and as I went to use another tool I realised I didn't need a dead tree copy anyway because there was a better way that didn't waste paper and ink.

I am not saying you don't need print (although you may not need it as much as you believe if you haven't tried seriously doing without) but on the rare cases you do need it don't you already have good options for doing that?
+10
I think this is a bit too radical =)...we don't want some crazy printing implementation. As I said, it would already be nice, if we could generate PDFs (in the perfect world there could be defined a syntax highlighting theme for printing the PDF) which should work cross plattform easily...ST2 doesn't even need a direct "Print" menu, just an "Export as PDF" would be all I need...from there I can work with it...

for the use cases of printing: At the university I have some courses in computer science (java programming and so on...) and this was really the first time I had to print code because we had to submit exercises each week in printed form^^...this was not my idea and I also found it very annoying, but we had to do it to get accepted to the exams...so what I'm trying to say...I also don't like to print code (because it gets old very fast, uses paper and ink and and and) but when it is necessary it would be nice if we had some way in ST2 to make it possible WITHOUT going to one of the 100s of programs that support printing...that's the point, we don't want to go to another software because we love ST2 =)...
+22
I really don't think printing is radical or crazy. I can't name a single modern text-editor or IDE off the top of my head which lacks a print function (other than ST2). Every modern OS has native hooks in place for printing. Plenty of printers get sold every year, and plenty of paper gets sold for the purpose of printing on. New printing technologies continue to appear every year as well, e.g. Google Cloud Print. This "printing" idea is one of the top 20 or so suggested on this very forum.


It's understandable that some folks rarely have a need to print on paper. But it should be clear to all that some folks DO have such a need, often, and those needs are valid. There are many situations where a computer is not available or suitable for document viewing, but paper is. And we don't just write code in ST2 -- we use it for a multitude of text editing purposes, many of which have printing use-cases. Here's just a few examples: reading in bed, working in the kitchen (recipes), many workplace settings, archival purposes, when I just want to hand someone a paper document, ...


The comments in this thread have essentially devolved into the "I need to print" vs. the "well I don't [and you shouldn't]" camps. I would simply ask the latter camp to consider that some of us do desire to print on 'dead trees' for valid reasons, even if you personally do not.


As for printing to PDF, I'd rather see ST2 utilize the OS's native printer services, and the user then utilize a PDF printer driver of their choosing if desired. After all, PDF isn't the only game in town for verbatim digital document formats; perhaps I'd like to print from ST2 into Google Docs via Google Cloud Print, or to Microsoft XPS, or something that hasn't been invented yet. By using OS-level printer hooks, ST2 would have many such options available for "printing" both to physical and digital media.


Anyway, this will be my last word on this issue. I expect Jon already understands the need of some folks to print and has it in his queue somewhere. 

+5
This is the only missing feature preventing me from deleting TextMate.
+8
Well said, jan otte!  Huzzah!

Let's also consider the time suck of supporting printing on all the OSes that Jon supports.

Linux (+variants)
Windows (XP, 7, Vista)
Mac OSX (ok, well, Mac at least is easy)

This could all be made simpler by having — instead of printing — an "output to {PDF,HTML}" feature, and I would be all about having that!  It is in the spirit of "use something else", but with the additional benefit of code highlighting alà ST2.

I hope people also keep in mind that printing from two of the other best editors out there — emacs and vim — is not: trivial, common, or very useful once you get it all setup.  On emacs it is recommended that you output the code as HTML and print from a browser.  This is an excellent suggestion, and I hope Jon considers this route.

In vim you will need to be familiar with CUPS, since you are working with low-level file APIs.  OR, once again, there is a to html feature (or so I've heard.  I know little of this...)

So: outputting to PDF/HTML would be an awesome alternative that would free Jon from having to support cross platform printing.  And guess what!?  It's already been done!
pygmentize -f html -l python -o test.html test.py
Stay tuned, I'll be right back with a new plugin...  I made mean comments to Joe Kraxner and lil demon that I need to make amends for.  I wish I could remove that whole thread below.  I had just gotten the hang of ST2 and was taken aback that someone was holding out.

One last point, if you'll allow me to be verbose: I don't think ST2 is an IDE.  Then again, IDE is vague: Interactive?  So is ed.  Development?  So is grep.  Environment?  So is your mom!  hehe, sorry.  Uh, bash is also an environment.  So is vim an IDE?  No, heck no.  ST2 is much more in the spirit of vim than Visual Studio ox Xcode or Eclipse, which are all unapologetically IDEs.  But anyway, I'll be back with a printing plugin in a few days...
+3
We'd need to be able to optionally configure if we wanted highlighting, row numbers, folded regions etc.
+6
+99 for printing. Paid for this app. Love it, but really, printing should be available. I use Sublime to write plain text documents that I want to print out. Having to open them in text mate to do this, is crazy.

I'm sure some people live in a lovely paperless world, but not all of us do. This app. needs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Printing is a basic feature that should not disregarded.
+1
I've been testing ST2 as a possible alternative to Boxer, which I've been using since 1991, first on DOS and now on Windows. The reason I haven't changed to another editor before now is that I want a single editor for ALL my text and code editing and printing, especially syntax formatted printing, is a vital part of any good editor. While ST2 would be a good candidate otherwise, the lack of printing makes it a very crippled product indeed.

Those who think it's just a matter of pasting the required text into another editor for printing clearly don't work very efficiently.
-17
"pasting the required text into another editor"

Sorry who said this, apart from you?

That would be the worst kind of retarded thing to do and if you think that is what is being suggested then no wonder you are confused.

Think again about what you are reading and what you are saying and it might seem a little less ridiculous to you.
+2
Sure, printing would be nice, but it is not a priority for me personally. However, I quickly whipped up a simple plugin that lets you send the file of the current view to an external command for printing. This works well enough for me.

Have a look at http://github.com/svenax/SublimePrint if you want to try it. Note that there's no Windows support at the moment.
+6
** Y ** E ** S ** ! ! ! ! !
How anyone can dream up a text editor **WITHOUT PRINTING** support is beyond me.....
+15
Inspired by Sven Axelsson and Jan Otte below, I have created a "Print to HTML" plugin. It should be available via Package Control in a few days, but until then you can get it here: https://github.com/joelpt/sublimetext-print-to-html


Basically it uses Pygments to convert a code file to HTML, then opens it in your default web browser. By default it will also trigger the browser to open its Print dialog, so it's effectively pretty close to a normal Print function. The Pygments conversion isn't always as good as ST2's native syntax highlighting, but I may add that in time.


The plugin supports a few basic options such as monochrome output and line-numbering control. It should work on any platform that ST2 supports.

+2
Thanks for your efforts Joel but when I tried this on my Mac two things didn't work.

  1. It wasn't available in Package Control, so I downloaded it and installed it manually and restarted Sublime.
  2. Although the menu items for printing are there selecting either one does nothing. At least nothing that can be seen or which produces output. It didn't matter whether if any, all or none of the text in the document was selected.


-1
Regarding #1: It should appear in Package Control soon, just waiting for the Package Control maintainer to accept my submission.

Regarding #2: I got ahold of a Mac OSX Lion 10.7.3 machine and was able to install and use the plugin successfully. Both menu items worked as well as printing to browser (to both Safari and Chrome).

Could you show ST2's console (View->Show Console), run either of the print commands that are failing, and see what error comes up? If you could copy-paste that into a new issue on the project's Github issue tracker (don't want to pollute this thread with discussion of the problem), that would be extremely helpful. URL: https://github.com/joelpt/sublimetext-print-to-html/issues
Sorry Joel, I can't help at the moment. My Mac died and I'm waiting on a replacement. I'm stuck with using Windows for the time being.
+1
Here's what the console spits out in Ubuntu 12.04 after ctrl+S then shift+alt+P:
Writing file /home/gordon/kinetic notes with encoding UTF-8
Plain text or no text, defaulting to: <pygments.lexers.TextLexer>
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/sublime-text-2/sublime_plugin.py", line 356, in run_
    return self.run(edit, **args)
  File "./PrintToHTML.py", line 72, in run
  File "./PrintToHTML.py", line 103, in send_to_browser
  File "./desktop/__init__.py", line 279, in open
  File "./desktop/__init__.py", line 86, in _run
  File ".\subprocess.py", line 633, in __init__
  File ".\subprocess.py", line 1139, in _execute_child
OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory

+1
Worked great first time round for me. Awesome to be able to print my code to manual review it and learn. Thanks!!


+4

Absolutely! It is a fundamental feature.

+1 
I agree, though, with some of you that printing might bloat this software, so I would suggest a package to print; then one can choose to add print support.
Furthermore; If ST2 would print, it would have to be with color coding (optional), that would be the + over any other piece of software.

(@ Joel Thornton: I'm going to try your package, thank you! )
+4
+1.I agree. Print with color coding and also the indentation lines too would be great.
+6
+1, include color / syntax, include option to include/exclude line numbers
+2

This is nearly the only reason why I have to leave my primary text editor Sublime Text 2. I don't have any special requirement other than I don't like to start a second editor for printing out some snippets.

+1
-1
No. I don't think this feature is really necessary. 

I've been using it everyday for two months and only found out it couldn't print this morning.  So I'd say printing is not that essential for a hacker's editor. In my case, I went to package control and immediately found two packages 'HTML Export' and 'ExportHTML'. I installed 'HTML Export'. and it export the code to my browser, with nice colors , formatting and line numbers. I hit 'Print' in the browser menu. Problem solved.

I like Sublime Text for its light weight and speed. Printing(on paper) is the weight I can lose.
+7

+1.

Come on, really? I evaluated Sublime Text 2 for a few weeks and ended up buying it because it is a really nice editor and I think the licensing model is solid. I don't print often, but sometimes I >do< have to print. Maybe there is a complex piece of code I want to take to a quiet place to study away from my desk, or I want to take notes in the margin, or I want to highlight, or... For me, printing is part of >every< text-based editing program since the C64, it >never< occurred to me it would be missing from such a nice program that does pretty much everything else. Then, one day I needed to print something and it isn't there!! All I could say was 'what the? I must be going blind or it must be a plugin'. NOPE! Please guys, I know you want to keep trees alive, but for heaven sake, add printing! All you are doing is making people who need to print something jump through hoops. You aren't saving trees, you are frustrating your users.

Thanks all for posting this stuff. I was going to buy a few licenses of Sublime Text 2 for my team, but now that I see that printing is actually not supported (I thought it might be a trial-only limitation) there is no way I will buy it. Too bad that the developer can't see that there are MANY reasons to need to print (including compliance in some companies).

-1

Really, there is a need for paper code copies for compliance and this is being done by hand by humans?


Would it not make more sense to have a developer write a batch job to print all the things that need to be on paper for compliance? That would seem to be a much better solution than relying on fallible humans to remember a step that really stopped making sense 10 years ago.


When the various tax offices around the world starting accepting .pdfs of documents (as other digital formats) as valid proof then companies should have reassessed if their own compliance could be at least as good (in fact, probably far superior) by holding these records as digital records with all the benefits that brings.


Not really on topic for ST2 directly but having recently convinced the luddites in charge of my company of the advantages of digital archives over dead tree archives I know it can be done to the advantage of all concerned, not least the shareholders of the company.

+2

In general i believe it should be possible to write a plug-in for that because we can access the content of the document via plugins. Not sure how to hand over some print jobs under Windows / Linux / Mac OS. But my personal point of view is that this should be done in the core application.


What I found:

Windows:  win32print 

http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2010/02/14/python-windows-and-printers/

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8272161/how-to-print-a-file-to-paper-in-python-3-on-windows-xp-7


Linux:  os.popen()

http://www.daniweb.com/software-development/python/threads/112111/printingto-a-printer-how-to#

+2

Using a plugin this is easy. I think there are plugins to export a file to HTML, so you could then just print the page.

yes, there is always a workaround. But opening a web browser to to print a text file is as bad as opening a second text editor to print a file from a text editor. Than I have to ask myself whether this is the right text editor.

+3

Strange isn't it, how nobody would find it acceptable to have to export a web page to a text editor in order to print it, yet some people find the reverse perfectly acceptable.

-2

Wow that must be a very handy super power to have. Knowing what other people think (in terms of what they think is and is not acceptable) without even having to ask them. I find that I have to ask people what they think. So much easier with your super power.


However in this case it is not working completely accurately. In 2012 the number of reasons and circumstances it makes sense to print a webpage are so few and far between that I would have no trouble with using a web browser that required me to export the page to a pdf to print it.


My personal opinion is that native printing in ST2 is not important but my opinion is not everyone's so vive la difference.

-1

I believe that due to me professional roles I am in a far better than average position to know and understand what computer users need and want. It's not mind reading. It's experience. As for your conclusions about the need to print web pages, you couldn't be more wrong. Most people do so regularly.

-1

Sorry I was not clear enough. When I wrote my post I wasn't speaking on behalf of anyone else, just myself.


Your post suggested that the set of people who would accept a browser without native printing to dead tree is the empty set.


From personal knowledge of my own opinion I knew that was false. And today I asked 5 programmers who all also said they didn't see a problem with such a browser so the set is even less empty. On your side was one manager who said they would not accept such a browser (but this a man who has his assistant print out all his emails so he can read them so no surprise there that he sees paper as king - not a ridiculous preference but not one I share).


So there seems to be some people who agree with you and some who do not. Pretty much what I would have expected before I asked but I actually did ask rather than assuming I possessed some form of superior professional expertise to you or anyone else in a community devoted to discussing a sophisticated text editor (after all I think it is likely that most people who bother to  be here have worthwhile opinions and the experience to back them, just like you, or they would not be here at all).


Opinions are like noses, almost everyone has one and isn't it great that that is the case.

-6

Ok jan, I'll concede the argument. Clearly the six people you asked are far more representative of the human population than the thousands I deal with. Let's leave it at that.

Cool but where did I claim that the 6 people were in anyway representative?


Putting words into my mouth does you no credit.


All I was saying was 'nobody' was false in the same way 1 in a million is not the same as zero.


If you sample your thousands on their browser printing preference and have a statistic for us it would be of passing interest to know the result but would not change the trivial point being discussed.


More relevantly, how does any of this inform the choice of people to use or not use ST2 based on the absence or presence of native printing?


ST2 does not, now, have native printing and if anyone has that as a 'must have feature' for their text editor ST2 fails to fulfil that criterion and they need to take that into account when making the decisions about whether ST2 is for them.


But please do let us know how your sampling of the thousands goes. Opinion stats are always cool to know. Or maybe you already have a number for us? Please share it if you do.

I agree the "print via browser" workaround is not as good as native support, but if you use my Print to HTML plugin, the workflow is better than manually loading into a second text editor: hit Shift-Alt-P, up comes the "print preview" in the browser, hit Enter to print. At least for me, this workflow is functionally very close to how a native print (w/ preview) workflow would behave.

Of course this assumes you have a browser open all the time; if you usually have your browser closed you have that additional wait time for the browser to launch, which I imagine could get rather annoying.

-15

Waah waah waaaah!! Install the damn plugin, click print, then click OK in the pop-up! Its that easy! Quit masterbating off to your stupid printer. This is a fantastic text editor! NOT a paper editor!

+9

Let's keep it civil, please.

+2

Maybe no-one told that way: This is an USD $59 text editor. I would not expect from any free editor that it can not print. We are just talking about "any kind of printing" not perfect formatting. It is just about basic functionality to keep me using this editor as my only editor on all OSes and not thinking about alternatives.

+4

There's no need for people to get worked up about this. It's a feature request. Given that Sublime Text is the only editor I've ever used that doesn't have print functionality I believe it's more than reasonable to assume that it's a feature that's expected of text editors.

+2

yes, please adding printing support. it would be nice if you could highlight just a section of code and print that excerpt as well. i think an options panel would be nice too, like toggling line numbers.

+1

Just experienced this dilemma today! I would love it if Sublime would support printing, or at the very least printing to PDF (with syntax highlighting please!)

+1

I had almost talked myself into forking over the sixty bucks for this (otherwise) awesome product. Glad I found this out first. Seriously, this is like asking me to buy a car with no blinkers... *scoff* "Nobody uses those anymore. We replaced them with a reverse Polish calculator, it's much more useful."

+1

I would love to see printing as a feature. In fact I was very surprised not to see one. I believe that at some point most of us would need to print something and sometimes you have to do it quickly. 

+2

 Wow.. quite the (good) discussion.  But like pp , I also bought and then used this product for several months before even noticing that there was no PRINT feature.  For the once in a blue-moon (for me) situation, I'll stick with copying the relevant section from Sublime into Notepad and printing from there.

+3

Using other software for printing does not sound good. Its like getting a smartphone with no sms capabilities so you have to also carry a cheap dumb phone to be able to send an sms when you would actually need it. 

-2

So let's surface your assumptions here.


For you, native printing is a central to the functionality of a text editor as SMS is for a smartphone.


For me (and, it seems, others) native printing is **not** analogous to SMS. It is more an additional extra that we can do without. Perhaps more analogous to being able to edit .docx files on a smartphone. While that could be handy and may well be an absolute requirement for some people many of us could tolerate working in a .txt file on our phone and pasting that text into a .docx file when we are back on a laptop/desktop. 


If someone *needs* .docx editing on their phone then they should definitely keep looking until they find a phone that does that (they exist). For someone for whom it is a minor inconvenience once every few months they should consider if the other benefits of the phone are sufficient to out-balance the .docx lack.


Not, in any way, saying your requirements of a text editor are wrong but simply that they are not everyone's. 

-1

Actually, believe SMS is a MUCH closer analogy. When you buy a simple cell phone, you can make assumptions of features it will contain. Not everyone will use every feature (I rarely use SMS myself) but I think one could safely assume any cell phone could:


  1. The ability to enter a phone number to call
  2. The ability to make a call to the phone number you enter
  3. The ability to see who is calling you
  4. The ability to store a phone number and a name in a phonebook
  5. The ability to send text messages (SMS)
Many other features might exist, depending on how fancy the phone is (camera, games, etc.) but I think the above 5 are assumed on all cell phones. Have you seen a single cell phone in the last 10 years that didn't have all of these features.
I believe the same can generally be said for text editors: there are features that one just assumes the text editor will have
  1. Enter text
  2. Save entered text to some storage
  3. Load text from some storage
  4. Basic abilities to manipulate the text (copy, paste, etc.)
  5. Print
Again, most of them will have many, many other features. Obviously you won't argue with 1-4. The question is, of course, #5. Because I don't SMS as I think it is a waste of money, should I assume that it really isn't a necessary feature for a phone I sell? If we observe pretty much every other modern text editors in production (either free or pay) do we find that #5 is in the feature set and therefore an "assumed" feature for a text editor? What percentage of text editors have this as a feature? I think we can safely say that ST missing this feature is so unusual that I would bet that the vast majority of its users didn't realize it was missing this feature until they went to use it (just as it never occurred to me to check if it was there before I bought ST). Especially on Windows and and Mac, there would be no reason to ask "can it print?", one just asks "why doesn't Control-P" do anything or "I don't see Print under File, where did they put it?" 
I not asking you if you print, I am asking: what other modern text editors (free or paid, especially on Mac and Windows) don't support printing? I'll grant VIM is somewhat spottier when it comes to printing, but every other text editor I've used in Windows and Mac support printing.

-1

"Actually, believe SMS is a MUCH closer analogy." 

Isn't that exactly what I said?

"For you, native printing is a central to the functionality of a text editor as SMS is for a smartphone."

Yes it is. For you, native printing is as fundamental to an editor as SMS is to a phone. Excellent, we agree completely on your opinion on the matter. And your opinion is fine, reasonable and it is lovely that you have it and have shared it.


It just happens that my opinion and that of some other people is different. Surely that is just as fine and reasonable as it is for you to hold the opinion you do? I think it is anyway. And with that different opinion then a different analogy applies to **me**. If I lead you to believe that that should also apply to you then I am sorry you read it that way. The sentence I have quoted above was intended to prevent that misunderstanding but seems to have failed to do so.


I will just address the argument of 'commonality' while I am typing. Almost every car made in the 1980s had an ashtray. Does that mean the presence or absence of an ashtray was a deal breaker on buying a given car? Well maybe it was for some people and I know it wasn't for some other people. Certainly a lot of people had ashtrays and did not smoke and for them it was irrelevant. But if someone made it one of their list of 'buy/no buy' decisions then that was absolutely fine in a free society. So the commonality of ashtrays (or any other feature of a car that was not required to get it started, run safely and stop on demand) tells us nothing about the wisdom of the feature in either direction.


Happy times and I hope you are happy with whatever editor you end up choosing that best meets you needs. For me it is ST2 and I would hope that could be true for you too, but if it isn't then it isn't.

+3

First of all I would like to say that I respect how everybody organizes his desk and in fact I'm printing very seldom as most here do as well.


But I find it a bit confusing why customers are legitimating a missing feature of a commercial product which at the end is not even cheep. Further, a big part of the power from Sublime Text already comes out of the community even this is a commercial product and I appreciate the author for providing the infrastructure and the community for making Sublime Text such a complete product.


Many customers do already have their own and modern way to organize their work without killing trees. Others might have company restrictions or simply some times use the editor for other things than writing source code.


I simply don't see a reason here why EVERYBODY'S WAY OF LIFE must be discussed here separately. I just would like to summarize: Whatever you are doing with your editor it is fine. And it does not make sense criticizing anybody else because he uses the text editor or even his computer another way.


But my point is: Having a print option is an important commercial feature of the core system. Instead we have 67 posts where half of them are excusing why printing is not implemented by telling that it is not needed for their setup or there are more or less good workarounds available. At the end customers shelter the author of this great product which is not necessary at all. And having such a huge thread without having an official statement from the author regarding why it is not implemented (yet) and how the outlook is is very bad. Shell tree killers avoid buying his product? Is it objectionable that they buy the product? Whatever is your all opinion here is not of any interest. Only the author can tell.

-8

"Having a print option is an important commercial feature of the core system."

Is **your** opinion. Unless you are an investor or similar why does your opinion about the commercial viability (or whatever commercial point you are trying to make) hold any more weight than anyone else's? Aren't you just doing exactly what you are criticising other people for doing? Telling others how they should think. "Whatever is your ... opinion here is not of any [more] interest [than anyone else voicing their opinion]."


In my opinion you are entitled to tell other people how you think and even to tell them how they should think but since you invest some energy into decrying others for urging their opinions onto others then you are on shaky ground when you start doing it yourself in the same post.


Your point here is also dubious "half of them are excusing why printing is not implemented". There are a lot of people saying printing is irrelevant to them which is not 'excusing' anything. Just making the point that those who think native printing is vital or 'an important commercial feature' or even important are expressing opinions which are **not** shared by **everyone**. If having and sharing a different opinion to someone else is now a bad thing then the world is going to hell in a hand basket faster than I ever realised. 


Other people are pointing out that regardless of tool used there is a lot fewer reasons to print things in 2012 than in the past and for the sake of wallets, the planet, and operational efficiency people should be thinking about doing as little printing as makes sense. That is also not a 'excuse' for anything. It is a simple statement of fact and an urging to create just a little less waste (because printing when not needed it obviously 'waste' in the commercial sense of the word). None of that is, directly, to do with ST2 at all.


On the other main point, how could Jon respond in a way that would help matters? If he says he will be adding native printing at some point then he is open to charges of selling vapourware promises. If he says he never will then he is limiting his options to make a decision to add it at some point in the future. There is no good answer that Jon can make that won't just have more of the same (or effectively the same) conversation to no good end. In this, as so many things in life, action is all that really matters. If native printing is implemented in a future release then it will have happened. Unless and until it does native printing is not a feature of ST2. Words of encouragement or discouragement will do nothing to change that fact until that fact changes.


The facts are as they are. People should make decisions they need to make today based on the facts as they are today.

+6

Where is the point?


Summary, and I hope you are with me in that point:

- This thread is about having an easy to use print button. 


If this thread would be about FORTH syntax highlighting, would there be as many aggressive people telling "FORTH is a very old programming language concept. Nobody needs it in those days. Write your programs in another language."


Compared to the useless printing discussion the dialog would be:

- Developer: "But from time to time I must open FORTH source code"

- Community: "Just rewrite each code a way that it can be syntax highlighted or open it in an editor that can do syntax highlighting."

- Developer: "I like Sublime but I don't like FORTH. But from time to time I need to look at this bloody old sources."

- Community: "Search for a new employer."


In my eyes, such discussion this is simply trolling from kind of Windows/Linux/Mac Os is better than the other OS. And the whole thread here is full it.


Even I DO NOT PRINT MUCH, I would appreciate if the people that ARE NOT INTERESTED in printing at all would not continue reading here because this thread brings absolutely no benefit for them independent whether the outcome of the thread is that printing will be implemented or not.

+3

I think the bulk of us agree with you. If new people want to chime in that printing is a necessary feature, great. If new people want to chime in that printing is outdated and stupid and nobody prints and software shouldn't offer printing, great too. But, I will no longer fan the argument flames - it is a complete waste of time.

-4

"If new people want to chime in that printing is a necessary feature, great."

Totally agree.


"If new people want to chime in that printing is outdated and stupid and nobody prints and software shouldn't offer printing, great too."

While I agree in principle I wonder why you raise it as an example since no-one has said that so far so if someone did say it then it would be the first time it was said and therefore interesting in its novelty.


"...it is a complete waste of time"

Totally agree.

-5

"This thread is about having an easy to use print button."

No that is available already through the multiple, readily available, extensions so would not be worth discussing.

This thread is about native printing being required rather than relying on an extension.


The rest of your point is based on an interpretation of what other people are saying that I do not believe is borne out if you read what is said through clear eyes and an analogy which seems to demonstrate an almost complete failure to understand what is being said to you.


Read through the thread and find anything that aligns to your analogy. I have and I can't. 


This is more what I see 

- Developer: "From time to time I must open FORTH source code and ST2 does not have a syntax highlighting bundle supplied natively"

- Community: "Well search here and here to see if there is a bundle that meets your needs that you can use to extend ST2 to meet your needs. If there is nothing currently available then you may need to write your bundle, there are guides here and here on how to do that. We are here to help you if you run into trouble after making a serious effort."

- Developer: "I want to have FORTH syntax highlighting supplied without  having to install an extension"

- Community: "Well then you may need to look at using another editor. But please pause and think about whether you really want to reject ST2 just because you will need to do a little bit of work to achieve this thing you would like to have. You can solve this through ST2 through use of an extension and maybe that is a good solution if you think about calmly. It might even be fun to write a bundle yourself even if one already exists."


So that's where we are at. Your view of the conversation is what you have said. Mine is something close to what I have said. I see one of the key strengths of ST2 is being a strong base upon which users can build the specific tools they need due to its highly extensible nature.


I am not sure what your point is but it seems to be different in some important ways.


Again many people here have said that they see ST2 as 'not cheap' while I see it as very very cheap for what it is and what I get. That's the sort of difference in perceived costs and benefits that is unlikely to ever be bridged. It is a fundamental difference in how people see value in software. Happily this is one of those things where everyone is right because everyone is making their choices based upon their own framework that defines what is right for them.


Vive la difference.

+4

To unsubscribe from this discussion, see "Unsubscribe" in the sidebar at right under "Notifications."


+6

I can print!


I just cloned Sven Axelsson's http://github.com/svenax/SublimePrint , extended the code a bit to work around environmental constraints I have had, documented relevant changes in the README.md and extended it with all functions I would like to see for printing.


Features:

* print files

* print selections

* print clipboard content

* select a printer via user defined SublimePrint.sublime-settings

* enable/disable line numbers and file name to be printed via user defined SublimePrint.sublime-settings


It works fine for me for Linux and Mac so far. Windows support is welcome but I don't have access to a Windows machine so far. The source still has room to reduce duplicated code which would be useful to do before supporting Windows. As I wrote in a post before, there is this windows API win32print that we should be able to use. Not sure how complicated its is. I simply don't have Windows access for the next 2 months.


The configuration is a bit rudimentary with Sublime settings files. At least a dialog based printer selection would be cool. Anyway, Sublime is used by technicians that are able to edit property files. 


Readme: https://github.com/freeella/SublimePrint.sublime-package

Download: https://github.com/freeella/SublimePrint.sublime-package/raw/master/SublimePrint.sublime-package


+4

I was just considering buying a license for Sublime Text 2 after reading the website today and while still being absolutely amazed by all of the insane things that this editor can do I found this: "Feature requests can be submitted to http://sublimetext.userecho.com/" and I thought to myself: "Wow, if that editor can do everything imaginable then I wonder what crazy features people are requesting!"


So I went here out of couriosity and I saw printing as one of the most requested features. I thought: "Surely it must mean some crazy printing features, like printing some conspects of programs, parts of them, or many files from the project combined in a way to show parts that are most important for some particular execution flow, or annotated printing of code with arrows pointing from function calls to function definitions, or something like that." Imagine my surprise when I finally realized that the feature was in fact just printing, any printing.


And then if that wasn't enough I started reading countless comments by people who are so passionately against adding this feature and who apparently spent hours writing about it as if they though printing was to be made mandatory!


Come on people, let's be real, would that really hurt you so much to have an option to print?

And for everyone who says that it's a hackers editor and hackers have some obligation to save trees or something similar, let me remind you that this is the first thing that is written on the Sublime Text website: "Sublime Text is a sophisticated text editor for code, markup and prose." [emphasis added] And that is why I wanted to buy it, to write prose. And some may not realize, but prose authors sometimes like to, you know, print it. Not everything, not always, but occasionaly. And if I need to close Sublime Text and open TextMate every time I want to print something then surely something is wrong here. It would be like saying that not everyone needs search and replace so use some other editor every time you need it.

That having been said, I am voting in favor of that feature request.
-5

"Come on people, let's be real, would that really hurt you so much to have an option to print?"


The option exists.


Add any of the range of extensions that provide printing and you are printing in minutes.


The discussion is **not** about 'printing being available' because it is available.


The discussion is whether or not it must be a 'native' feature or whether the need to install an optional extension is acceptable.


It seems, based on your post, that you are on the 'optional is fine' side of the discussion. Is that right?


-1

I have to agree with the others who have expressed shock that no printing capability currently exists. Since this is such a fine bit of software, I have considered purchasing a license.  However, until some sort of printing capability is implemented, I'm afraid I will have to defer.

-1

@Jan Otte:

If I am considering purchasing a license for an application like Sublime Text 2, I don't expect to have to implement extensions, plug-ins, etc. just to be able to print.  I suspect they are losing significant potential revenue by not implementing - as you say - "native" printing capability.  I'm not sure why they are so reluctant to do so, especially since this has been a requested feature for 3+ years!

-1

Hello, I really like sublime and would like to support with buying a license, but in my optinion it's a really important feature to have a chance to print OOTB. I don't wan't to pay a lot of money and miss such a feature or have a lot of trouble to realize such a fundamental feature. Please include this feature and inform us about this.


TIA and regards

+6

I paid the big whopping $59 for Sublime Text 2.  I didn't know that it was without a print menu choice but that would NOT have changed my mind about using this wonderful editor.  I use the PHP highlight_file() function to display my code nicely inside of a browser, which does have a print button.  


I haven't searched the web for some code that makes highlight_file() format Python or Ruby or what have you but it's probably out there.  And if it's not, write it if this is such a problem for you.

+4

A good printing feature would be very welcome. The only editor (on Linux) where I found that (I don't mean a print feature, but one that actually always works as expected) is Komodo, until now...

+4
I always copy my code into gedit for printing. It retains the syntax hilighting and can print the line numbers, etc. But I agree it's a little silly that sublime doesn't have feature parity for printing.


+1

I haven't printed code since needing to turn it in for a school project which was when your printout came out of the printer you needed to seperate the pages at the perforation and tear off the tractor feed, which would occasionally get folded into a long accordian shape. I imagine now professors would probably want it emailed to them.

+1

I don't print code either, but I often use the text editor for other than coding, i.e. print some text reports, receipts, etc. So, it would really be nice to use Sublime for that as well, and not having to fire up another editor.

-3

So have you tried installing one of the printing packages?

If you haven't then how about trying one or more of them and see which one best suits your needs?

If you have which one did you find best for you?

+3

My team just discovered the missing print feature in sublime after using it in complete bliss for a few months. We all kind of collectively said "huh".  I find this interesting for two reasons: 1) it's a feature pretty much expected in any text editor and 2) no one on the team noticed it for months. So that makes me suspect the developers know something--that we hadn't realized--about how text editors are actually used. 

I would like to see a print feature added. But, considering how long it took to notice, I can't say its a make or break feature. We will likely be paying for licences

+1

This comment has reminded me a talk I had with a friend some time ago when he discovered that his mobile phone doesn't generate DTMF touch-tones when he presses the keys during the phone calls. He said that he hadn't noticed it for so long that it must not be an essential feature and when he occasionally has to call some support line that requires it then it is not such a big deal to take out his SIM card and put it in his other phone before making such a call once every few months or so.


You can have two conclusions from that story: One is to suspect that the developers of LG phones know something--that we hadn't realized--about how phones are actually used. The other one is that it's a pretty crappy phone to miss a functionality that while not being needed every day (which is a way to say that it may be needed some day) wouldn't hurt at all to be available even if not needed - like, say, printing in a text editor.


What I find most interesting in this thread is not that an editor can lack such a functionality but the reaction of all the people who say that it should not print, period - people who are not interested in printing, and yet interestingly enough spend their time participating in a forum on the feature request for printing, no less.


Maybe printing is rarely used by some people, maybe not, I don't know. I don't print everything every day. But then again I don't ROT-13 a selection every day, either, and still I have it in Sublime Text. Do I ask the developers to remove it because I don't use it and when I use it I can use another editor or a shell script? No because it doesn't hurt me to have a functionality that is rarely used - I just don't use it if I don't want to.


It is quite surprising that a commercial product would not add such a basic feature that a lot of people are requesting, just because some other people wouldn't use it every day. If I were the author of ST2 I would add printing just to stop threads like this. It might not surprise me if it was some crappy software - but the fact that ST2 is such a beautiful editor with no out-of-the-box printing support is just like the most beautiful phone with no touch-tone support. Not a deal-breaker but something is not right.

The analogy between this and your example breaks down in that you can't use the tones of another phone, but I can very easily use an other text editor to print.  I'd love to have a print function in sublime2--no argument there. I just recognize that it's clearly not as essential as some people seem to think.

+1

John,

I would say that - based on all of the comments on the lack of native printing capability - your statement that "it's clearly not as essential as some people seem to think" is rather subjective.

+3

Also, a quick review of all the comments should tell you its all subjective.

+2

I see what you're saying. However, the other comments don't seem to imply a consensus of opinion on the importance of native printing capability as does your comment.

+2

Sure. But then, a forum like this provides a sampling skewed in the direction of discontent. Let's imagine that I was compensating for that. If you really want to get a fair sampling, you'll need to survey all users of Sublime2, not just those willing to complain in a forum about what is probably, in the end, a minor feature and not as necessary as some might think.  If you did such a survey,  I'd bet you'd be making many of them aware of the absence of the feature for the first time.

To summarize, I'd wager its not a big deal to the majority of people using Sublime, so I don't mind implying it and I won't apologize for it.

+2

The analogy between this and your example breaks down in that you can't use the tones of another phone, but I can very easily use an other text editor to print.


Actually you can and in fact that was the whole point of the entire story -- you can put your SIM card into another phone just as easily as you can open your file in another editor. This is exactly what my friend is doing, as I've tried to explain.


As a matter of fact, you can even make it even easier by just using the other phone to generate the touch-tones into your touch-tone-less phone's microphone as they are just sounds -- no need to swap SIM cards.


So yes, you're right that the analogy is not perfect, but it's because it's easier with phones. Besides, the fact whether the analogy is perfect or not is meaningless as this is actually a true story -- I didn't make it up so don't blame me.


I'd love to have a print function in sublime2--no argument there. I just recognize that it's clearly not as essential as some people seem to think.


So you know better what's essential for them and they merely seem to think that it's essential when they say so? Wow. Then you should surely tell them what they really need because they seem to be terribly confused by voicing their opinion in a discussion on a feature request of a commercial software that they paid for! Good thing that you recognize that it's clearly not as essential as they seem to think. I'm sure that knowing that they will stop wanting it now.

-3

Instead of the huge hassle of SIM swapping imagine the phone in your example could have the desired feature added by installing a free and readily available app.


That is the situation with ST2. Printing is not available 'out of the box'. You have to install a free plugin.


I am at a loss as to why lack of native printing produces such emotional responses when that the almost required installation of the sidebar enhancing plugins and the package manager plugins do not. Really once you have installed those plugins not having them makes ST2 seem crippled. Yet I don't see people being distressed by the option to install or not install them and the right to choose the plugin they like best. If anything it seems some proportion of people see the freedom to add or deduct those features as they feel best as a feature. But not with printing. That seems to be a different class of thing for some people. 


All very interesting, isn't it?


For me, I was going to abandon ST2 until I found plugins to give me file paths, copy, delete, new folders etc within the editor. That, for me, was at least as vital as printing is to some people. But then I found the right package for me, installed it, smiled that it worked better than I thought it might and got on with my work happy to have such a flexible, extensible and powerful tool to work with. I didn't feel the need to moan about those things that I consider vital not being native and that I had to install a package to get them.


Isn't it great that we are all so different?

+5

That is the situation with ST2. Printing is not available 'out of the box'. You have to install a free plugin.


Great but which plugin? Can you finally explain it? Out of the "readily available" plugins I found two:


1. Print to HTML - obviously it is not a plugin that prints but an HTML formatter. If I want to print a file with it I have to write a temporary HTML file, open it in a browser, and then print it - every time I want to print. If I have to use some other application (a browser) then I might as well use some other editor to do that - at least I won't pollute my projects with useless HTML files that way.


2. QuickPrint - I installed it, and when I try to print nothing happens. I don't even get a printing dialog. So I digged through the source code and found this: "I do not know if this works on anything other than Windows". Great. It doesn't. According to the README, even on Windows you have to share your printer just to use this plugin. It also says: "linux/osx: It should print to the default printer" - first of all, it doesn't on my system. Second of all, why the default printer? I don't even remember if the default printer is my home printer or one of the printers at work, or maybe a print-to-PDF driver or a fax (yes, some people still use them). This is what the system printing dialogs are for. I don't have to edit configuration files of every other printing software I've ever used every time I move from home to work and vice versa or want to change the printer. Of course it is a theoretical problem since this plugin doesn't work anyway.


So unless you care to explain which "readily available" plugin does add printing feature to Sublime Text 2 then please stop just repeating "You have to install a free plugin" [emphasis added] without even saying which one is it. But don't recommend Print to HTML (as it doesn't print) and QuickPrint (as it doesn't work).


I am at a loss as to why lack of native printing produces such emotional responses when that the almost required installation of the sidebar enhancing plugins and the package manager plugins do not.


I can give you couple of answers:


1. The emotional responses are not to the lack of printing per se, but rather to the idea of some people here that ST2 should not have printing support. Read the comments here that were posted before you and others started replying that you don't want ST2 to have that feature to see what I mean.


2. People want native printing because that way they can use their native printing settings, like choosing printers and they don't want to jump through hops just to print, a thing that is trivial in every other editor.


3. This is a commercial software with a forum dedicated to feature requests. When they voice an opinion on a feature that they wish to have, they don't want people telling them that they don't know what they want. This feature was voted for by over 900 people, which translates to $54,000 worth of paying customers.


4. People are surprised to be told to use other editors for some parts of their workflow because if that editor cannot be used as their only editor then what's the point of using it.


5. Unlike enhanced sidebar or a package manager, an ability of a text editor to print is a feature that is pretty much taken for granted in every other text editor I have ever used since Commodore 64. People are seriously surprised that in such an advanced text editor such a basic function as printing could be a problem.


6. And finally, maybe people don't mind using the sidebar enhancing plugins and the package manager plugins because they actually work? I don't know, just a thought.


What is in my opinion much more interesting is why there is such an emotional response of people who don't need printing. Shouldn't you just don't care? Seriously, can you explain your emotional response to customers who are just in favour of this particular feature request? Is it because you are politically opposed to using paper to save trees? Are you trying to save the planet by saying to 900 customers that they shouldn't do what they want? I would seriously like to know that to better understand what is going on here so please do us a favour and explain the real reasons of your opposition to printing. And while you're at it, could you finally tell us which one of the "readily available" plugins that you talk about actually adds printing to Sublime Text? Thanks.

+1

If I look through all the upset feelings and the like and try to get to a rational discussion then  I think the essence might be something like this:


"I would like to have one of these two things. Either ST2 have native printing capability OR someone write a plugin that meets the following set of requirements 1.... 2.... 3.... . There is no current native printing and the packages I am aware of do not meet my needs."


Is that a fair summary of the facts and your position or am I putting words in your mouth? Please correct me where I have gone wrong.


If this was to become a calm discussion of the real or perceived deficiencies of the available printing extensions then I think it would have a lot more value than most of the content it has up to now. The 'person X said Y' when it is clear that they did NOT say Y is not getting us anywhere anyone wants  to go.


I really like the coverage you have given to the options you have looked into and where you find them lacking. I see that as really valuable. I don't share your concerns with Print to HTML (it does all I need and would be what I would recommend if you had not demanded that I do not do that) but you are quite entitled to have a set of requirements that don't match mine and setting those requirements out in a semi-formal way is going to get us towards building an extension that does meet your (and hopefully many other people's) needs.


Would you agree that turning this into a constructive discussion about the features and requirements of a new extension is a more fruitful path than the 'it must be native' has been so far? Feel free to disagree with me.

+8

I am using this version that I extended from the original version I have forked:


https://github.com/freeella/SublimePrint.sublime-package


See the readme file. It does work on Linux and Mac only because those days I don't own Windows. It is not in the plugin installer because I simply don't know how to do it and I already spent too much time for that plugin. I tried to make it more comfortable and stable than the original but especially the lake of a print dialog is something I don't like. I though that having it running with Windows as well is something really worth. But I will not spend time because I will not install Windows for a Sublime plugin only.


I agree that printing is nothing one should be forced to write his own plugin.


For my part, this forum is a waste of time. This is the third hottest feature in this forum for years and the developer of the editor didn't even write a single comment on this but likes us to pay a significant amount of $ for his editor. No-one is saying that a single person has to implement the 200st syntax highlighting and no-one is saying that esoteric features has to be implemented by him. So having a plug-in framework is very helpful.


I thought of buying the product because it runs on all OSes and has a plug-in framework, but I more and more doubt that ST2 is what I really need.


+3

Yes, thanks for the update, Kai. When I saw your pull request, I got inspired to update my original repo at


https://github.com/svenax/SublimePrint


It has been submitted to package control, but there seems to be quite a long merge request queue, so I don't know when it will appear. This solution is good enough for my own limited printing needs. 


Sure, I agree it seems logical that printing should be built-in. However, it can be noted that Emacs handled printing through an external program, pretty much like this plugin, for many years - maybe it even still does so.


For me, Sublime Text fits my needs very well, even without printing, refactoring, HTML, views, and other things that are frequently requested on this forum. But to each his own.

Right on, rsp! You tell it like it is!

-2

John must be a government employee since the government always seems to know what we are thinking and what is essential for us to have or not have.

As a seasoned veteran of the internets, I'm accustom to thoughtless and insensitive flames of every sort. But, by suggesting that I am a government employee, you transgress all recognized standards of decency. You cad. I have a good mind to report this abuse.

I can't tell whether your reply is tongue-in-cheek or not.  If so, it gave me a good chuckle.  I hope it was intended that way, because my "government employee" comment was certainly intended to be tongue-in-cheek.  If I'd intended it to be a flame, you'd have known it for sure.

Rest assured, my remarks were entirely maxillo-lingual.

yeah. ok. i'm fine with that. 

+1

Just found out about this problem myself. I've been using Sublime Text for a couple of weeks and had uninstalled Notepad++ as I thought it was no longer needed. What a pity. Needing to install another similar app to do something as simple as print. 

Notepad++ will still be my default text editor app on new builds until this basic function is available.


What's with all of the moaners thinking needed to print is an unusual feature from a text editor. Most people might not need to do it often but it's not an obscure option in a text editor.

+4

Um I just paid $70 for this commercial software and realized it cannot print. lol.


-1

Yeah, that is how I felt. But if you listen to folks like Jan and others here you are an idiot and a heathen for imagining that printing should be an included, basic feature. The Sublime folk don't seem to comment here, so both sides of this issue seem to be wasting our breath.

Be calm Kevin, I don't think you are a heathen. Nor do I think your opinion on native printing in any way suggests you are an idiot. 


On the matter of native printing things are what they are and you can either accept it or not. I am relaxed about it, you, apparently, are not. That's fine.

 

What you should NOT do is falsely attribute statements to people who didn't make them. That's not idiotic but neither is it cool.

+2

On the one hand, printing is platform specific and the author will have to do it 3X (mac, win,linux). And implementing printing support is non-trivial for any of those. However, the fact that there is already a minimap indicates to me that a lot of the core functionality is implemented to support printing. Just slice up that minimap image into page sized chunks and send it. And at least add printing to a "not yet implemented / not supported" section on the homepage. I didnt even think to look for it during my ST evaluation, because well you dont need printing until you *need printing*. :)

If Alex Rice thinks that printing text is a platform-dependent feature, than it would already good enough to print to PDF file. Everybody can then print its own PDF with his favorite PDF viewer... In my eyes, Sublime is very nice product for pure programmers but still too young as a general purpose text editor. So far I keep sticking to the old good TextMate. Sorry, but I had to revert back to it :-(

@Andrea- um, just to be clear, I totally agree with you.

-1

I commented above about being surprised that I did not notice the absence of this feature for a long while. Even though I don't have a great need for native printing, having read all the comments, I agree with those that say this feature should be added as a standard built-in feature as soon as possible. The folks that see it as a basic feature are probably right. Text Editors should just print. 

+1
+1 ... at least print to pdf; i don't really print, but i do print to PDF.... hate moving out of sublime to share-as-readonly a single page of text.


-1

This is my simple way to get pdfs when I need them in OS X (where I spend 70+% of my time).


I have installed the sideBarEnhancements package into sublime.


I then added 'TextEdit.app' to the 'Open With' menu within the package. So when I right click a file in the sidebar one of my options is to open the file in TextEdit.


Then Cmd-P opens the print dialog and since I, long ago, added a key binding to OS X another Cmd-P on the print dialog opens the 'save as PDF' dialog.


So a right click, navigating a short menu and two key presses and I can save a PDF in any location I want it.


If you want a more detailed explanation of how to do this in OS X let us know.

  

If you want to do something similar in another OS and have trouble using these hints to devise a similar set of steps let us know where you get caught up and me or someone else will help you out.

+3

Thanks so much. I've set it up with TextWrangler (free OSX editor) as this does a little bit of syntax highlighting.


Seriously an amazing tip.


Just to give others a bit more info on how to do this:


  1. Ensure that 'Package Control' package is installed.
  2. Install 'sideBarEnhancements' using Package Control.
  3. Right click on a file in the sidebar and choose 'Open With > Edit Applications... ' - this will open a file called Side Bar-sublime-menu.
  4. Add this text above the 'application 1' entry:

//application 0
{
"caption": "TextWrangler",
"id": "side-bar-files-open-with-textwrangler",
"command": "side_bar_files_open_with",
"args": {
"paths": [],
"application": "TextWrangler.app", // OSX
"extensions":"php|txt|log"  //any file with these extensions
}
},
5. Install TextWrangler.


Now you can right click on a file and choose 'Open With > TextWrangler', which allows printing.

+2

I like the approach of Marked for Markdown files. Use whatever editor you want for editing and use Marked for rendering output. A pretty printer for code running independent of the editors so we would have a robust means of output independent of the editor/IDE used.

+3

Oof, They want $70 for an editor now that doesn't have print support.  I think I'll hold out on buying a license until it gets implemented. And this thread is over 2 years old ...

+5

I was just on the verge of buying the editor, when I discovered that it cannot print.


Printing and reviewing readouts is too important a part of my "process" for me to ever be satisfied with Sublime (at least while it  doesn't support printing).   Pasting into Notepad or another editor is not an adequate substitute:  I need the context highlighting, as well.

-2

I don't want "workarounds" that require me to use another application to achieve one of the most basic functions of an editor: PRINT a file!

-1

Considering the discussion that the absence of native printing has generated, I'm sure that the sublime team will eventually get around to adding printing as a native feature. You might want to read some of the other comments on this page for other alternatives to native printing, such as the "Print as HTML" plugin. Not to in any way dismiss your frustration, however, ultimately, for many of us, there are fewer and fewer reasons to print out code on dead trees and the alternatives suffice without detracting from the plethora of excellent coding features of sublime.   I hope you can look past this inconvenience and avoid unnecessarily depriving yourself from enjoying those features.

+4

Sublime is indeed an excellent editor, but printing is so intrinsic to the way I work (or at least the way I work well), that "dead tree" considerations are paramount.   


Needless to say, I'm a geezer, and still have strong preferences for dead tree documentation and code review.   And I still take the position that I want my tools to help me work in my preferred style, rather than adapting my style to their features.    As much as I like Sublime, there are many competent programming editors out there that support my two "must have" features:   numbered bookmarks, and integrated printing.

+5

Sublime Text is a very nice editor, it is however not the only nice editor out there so I don't feel compelled to purchase something that doesn't have what I consider to be a very basic feature.  Not being able to print is the single reason I have not purchased Sublime Text.  I check in from time to time to see if it has been added and now that version 3 has gone public beta I checked it out and still no printing.


I am aware of the third-party plug-in work-arounds.  While this is acceptable to some, it is not acceptable to me. And while apparently many Sublime Text users don't print or are happy using work arounds I find it very odd that the nearly thousand users asking for printing and the hundreds of posts in the forums are not sufficient to raise printing on the priority list.  Why retina displays which relatively few people have, for example, has more priority than printing is beyond me.  I'm sure the developer has his reasons and that is fine.  However, personally, I vote with my dollars.  When native printing is added to Sublime Text it will then be worth its price to me.  Until then, I will use alternatives - all of which can print, even if they can't all do all the other things Sublime Text can, usually things that I don't really need and can easily live without.  

-13

Let's be honest with each other. Print is not what's holding you back, you're cheap and are trying to justify that. You wouldn't buy it even if it had print. If you need to print, copy and paste into any number of crappy text editors and print your heart out. If that's too difficult for you, why are you using a computer?

+1

Gosh Zachary.  That's pretty cold dude!

-16

True it is harsh but the original posting by C Knight kinda does raise some questions.


This "even if they can't all do all the other things Sublime Text can, usually things that I don't really need and can easily live without." tells us there is no reason for C Knight to change tools.


So why is C Knight continually checking back for printing? Seems bizarre anyone would choose to invest time into checking on something that does nothing special they want/need and lacks a feature they see as vital.


The other weirdness is the statement by so many people that 1000 votes is a utterly compelling basis for action. If you go have a look here http://wbond.net/sublime_packages/community we have these interesting stats:

- Install stats are based on a sampling of 30,853,995 installs over 1,973,846 users. Of those users, the platform breakdown is:

  • 33% OS X
  • 50% Windows
  • 17% Linux
If we take the figures naively 1000 votes represents 1 vote for every 1,973 users. Hardly a tilde wave of public concern about lack of native printing.
If we invert our thinking and want to believe that 1000 votes represents 1% of the user base we need to assume each human has more than 19 user identities. Seems a stretch.
These numbers prove nothing at all as I am sure anyone with any understanding of the numbers involved and the psychology of voting and all the other factors will immediately point out. But they do provide a bit of context to remind us that 1000 votes is also largely meaningless in and of itself. 
Anyway all good 'fun with numbers' stuff.
Happy daze

@Zachary have you ever taken a logic class in school?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

+5

Cheap because he expects a premium editor to, at the least, do what notepad (or *any* other "crappy" editor can do?


I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.  Sublime Text removed a standard feature that has been present in text editors since they were invented.  A feature that is so standard that it made my jaw drop the first time I went to find the print button and ended up finding this thread.  I felt like I had been cheated because I paid good money for a product that was missing core functionality.


I am getting by with the 'print to html' plugin, but this is a very valid point people are making.  What I don't understand is the need for people to label someone someone as cheap and too stupid to use a computer because they question the decision to remove a standard feature.

-6

I'm more surprised you didn't use the readily available free version of sublime text before actually putting money into it. If something with all functionality is completely free to download, and I can use it well in advance of buying it... why would I not do that? If ST were completely closed off and only a screenshot and list of features were available, I could understand the surprise. However, given that this isn't the case, the only real failure lies with you and not the application to deliver on functionality you should have been aware it did not have.

+6

That's my point exactly.  It's something that I never even thought to check until I needed it.  Why would I make sure it can print.  Everything can print.

-16

And how long was it between you starting to use ST and 'needing' to print something? A day?, a week?, a month?


Regardless of how long it took you have learned a valuable lesson about your purchasing decisions. When you are considering a purchase of any tool or service you should be creating a list of the 'must have' requirements and checking off that list. Too late now to save you from the 'onerous' task of installing SideBarEnhancments and adding a printing tool to the 'Open With' list but at least you will be able to use the lesson learned for the rest of your life and avoid similar assumption based mistakes in the future. That alone might be worth the cost of ST, and you got full rights to a powerful text editor as a bonus. There is always a silver lining if you look for it.

+5

Good god the amount of keyboard warriors on this forum is huge. Why can't some people just get it into their brains that printing is still a usual feature for text editors for millions of users.


Sublime Text doesn't have a printing feature. Many people (including myself) would like this.

If it's not there it's one extra reason not to buy the product. It's not so cheap for what it does so the cost is another reason.


I recently had to evaluate which editor to include on my build for my company (more than 200 users). 

Our environment is Mac / Linux / Windows.

Sublime Text was on our list and was a serious contender. We, like millions of other users, might want to print the odd page. I didn't notice it until I was using it for a week or so. Even if I only want to print once a week or month that means I need two editors on the system. Why bother with that? Why not just use one editor that does everything?


So Sublime text lost a sale to over 200 desktops / laptops because of this lack of a standard feature. We refresh our software every 3 -> 4 years so we may look at it again then or we may just upgrade the software we went with in the end.


It's no big thing to us. We didn't get religious about it. It just didn't meet our needs because of this one omission. I would be confident if the option to print was there then the developer would have a few extra thousand dollars in his pocked from my company.


-22

"Good god the amount of keyboard warriors on this forum is huge."

Yep and you just added yourself to the number. Welcome to the club. It's good to have you here typing away into a dead and pointless forum.


"that means I need two editors on the system"

Are you seriously suggesting this is a real issue? Do you really go around and delete the 'native' text tool from your machines? You delete Notepad.exe from the Windows machines? You delete Text Edit.app from the OS X machines? Really, do you really do that? Why? If you don't then you are running multiple text tools in every set up whatever full power editor you use. It's not a real issue.

 

And now to something of much more value to anyone who might read this far. 

I am interested in hearing what solution you ended up choosing for your shop. I am always interested in hearing what tools smart people use because I might find one that better suits me. So are you able and willing to share?

-16

QUOTE: "or *any* other "crappy" editor can do"


Some background reading that might be of interest. It does **not** provide a 'winning' argument for either side of this increasingly futile discussion but it might add some more context for those who are not aware of the fact that printing is **not** a universally native feature of powerful text editors.

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/PrintingFromEmacs

http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/print.html


- For some people native printing in a standard configuration of their editor is an exceptionally good thing. 

- For some people it is a vital feature of their editor that printing is native out of the box in a standard configuration (these people should probably avoid ST, Emacs, Vim, etc.).

- For some people it is not an important feature of their editor (these people may find ST, Emacs, Vim, etc. to be useful tools).


This has become a 'chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream'; 'No it's not, vanilla is better' discussion. It is little better than a 'VI vs Emacs' discussion and lacks the wit and cut and thrust of the best of those discussions.


It is good that this discussion exists and comes number two on my Google search for "printing sublime text". It is up there in full view if anyone goes looking and that is a good thing. Those who value native printing are able to find out about this design decision easily if they only think to look. 


Of course those who make assumptions based on their experience with other tools will not be helped by this Google ranking but dealing with all our independent assumptions is, surely, beyond the reasonable expectations we can have of any group or individual.


Number 1 result

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16004842/how-do-you-print-in-sublime-text-2

Number 2 result

http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/25170-printing/


Isn't it great that there are so many opinions and preferences and so many different tools that allow us to find one that matches our personal opinions and preferences? 


ST is not for everyone. It has embedded opinions and biases about what is and is not important and that is a good thing. Feel free to say 'My opinion is different' but don't pretend that your opinion is wiser or better than the one behind ST's design decisions, it is just different. Perhaps Coda is a better fit for you? Or something else? I wouldn't dream to tell you ST is right for you just because it fits my preferences.


ST follows a path more along the lines of the mighty Emacs or equally mighty Vim than Notepad++ or Coda. I like that decision but there is zero reason why you should share my preference. It is mine, have your own.

 

And now back to work in my favourite editor.

I hope you all get some good work done with your favourite tools today, too.


BTW: Have any of the people who have (1) paid for a ST licence (2) felt aggrieved at the lack of native printing on something they paid for contacted Jon to discuss their bad feelings? If you have then sharing the result of that conversation, if there was a result, would be of interest to me, and, I suspect, others.

+5

I paid for it, didn't notice the lack until a few weeks in and just used something else to print (happend like 2 times so far). I would find a native print function (or export e.g. PDF) great to preserve the nice ST colour schemes tho, but nothing deal breaking.

+4

Printing to PDF would be fantastic, as it would keep the colour scheme, which is what most people want - to print the coloured output of Sublime.

-20

'Most people'? Where are you getting that ratio from? Has there been a poll? I missed it if there was.


It seems to me that with wbond reporting in the region of 2 million users of Package Control (http://wbond.net/sublime_packages/community) that we have no good idea what the majority of users want in terms of dead tree or PDF output. But maybe I have missed where it was established that more than half of the user base want to output their code to another format (or onto mashed up dead tree) and yet keep the syntax highlighting they prefer.


If you share your code with me I want it digital so I can see it with the colour scheme I like, not the one you like and I have the power to run it through the dif and other tools that I like and to experiment with it and all the sort of stuff that I can't do if you have locked it up into PDF or, worse, sprayed ink onto a sheet of dead tree. It is code, I want to see it how Iike to see it. I want to see if it compiles and runs how you say it does. I want to test it and play with it. I want it to be alive, not dead. If we want or need version control then SVN, git, etc. blow printouts away in every possible sense and way.


If you are looking at your own code then how does removing it from the editor help? Several people say they find it useful but it is beyond me why or how. It is text, the best tool to view it in is a text editor. Isn't that really as simple as this really is? What am I missing here?


Anyway the whole thing seems an odd desire for these and a few more reasons I won't bore everyone with. However I am used to being told I am odd so who cares what I think. I am just doing some recreational forum posting to avoid some debugging but now it is time to go do some real work again.


Have fun everyone.

+6

Of course it's a real issue Jan.

If I want to print line numbers, headings, syntax colours for code I can't use Notepad.


But you're right about one thing. It is pointless typing into this forum. The point has been made by both sides. The developer can do what he wants. It's a business. People will pay for the product if it does what they want. They won't if it doesn't. So I won't bother typing again.

-21

Ah you posted against the wrong comment thread. Makes it a bit confusing for others but I doubt anyone is reading this anymore. Just popping in, throwing out a partly thought through idea and out again.


Okay so now you have added in a bunch of previously unstated requirements I see Notepad.exe is not enough. All of the new requirements are available using the print to HTML plugin but that's probably not the answer you are looking for. After all you may be printing 12 to 52 times a year on your own numbers. Based on that requirement then ST is off the table, I see that. Any other advantage over another editor is clearly nothing compared to the critical business needs you have listed.


Anyway the only interesting question was and is what did you decide to go with instead of ST?

Are you refusing to answer, or can't answer, or what? Did this 200 person decision really happen? ST lost the prize. Who won it?

+3

Just in case anyone IS listening, I purchased a license and I am astounded that the devs don't seem willing to include basic printing functionality. They should re-evaluate customer priorities, perhaps, but if most users don't want printing I guess those who do are SOL :-(

-4
Implementing printing right and cross plattform is a lot of work and this can be spent on more important stuff.
Especially since saving with syntax hilighting is possible and there are a lot of tools on every platform that already do the job.
Printing from a programmers text-editor will go the way of the disk-drive, soon.
+2
Still irks me that I can't print.  
Those of you who think we will have flying cars next year (and no need for code printouts) enjoy your delusions.  There is a need to review code in a printed form (which I find quite lovely to do in the morning while drinking coffee, I do this because it is easier for me to see problems which are less obvious on a monitor (limited viewing area and jumping from page 3 to page 6 is allot more time consuming on a editor)).
I understand that this is a medium sized problem to instantiate in the code, but would it take more or less time than say reviewing a million comments from users who feel cheated because it isn't there?

Another thought: every tool has its uses, I still use VIM in the terminal, I do not need to print from it.  I use ST 3 for most of my coding because it helps me code faster.  It is beyond a doubt the best editor I have used, I just find the inefficiency of having to use another editor to print, extremely frustrating.

I do have a licence for my ST 3, if that matters at all.

btw the sublimetext-print-to-html package prints but it losses about 10 lines per page where the header is also enscript (which I think is what it uses) doesn't work with php syntax (need to use php -s).  At the moment I do this: php -s file.php > print-out.html which I then load into a browser and then print. *ew*.

Just sayin.
+1
As for me, I am holding off with buying a license until printing works.

Sorry, it doesn't have to implement terminals and make coffee - but printing is just too basic of a functionality.

If SublimeText is to replace Notepad for me (at which point I will be ready to shell out the dollars), it has to at least implement the four things that Notepad can do - which is an extremely basic editor as is:
- Open a text file
- Change and Save a text file
- Find and Replace
- Print a file

You can't use Notepad for anything more than that, and at least that functionality should be covered by a text editor. I certainly don't want to have to Ctrl+A / C, open notepad, Ctrl+V / P just to print a file.

Until this is implemented, I am a free user.
Once you can print, you can count on getting my money.
+5
I first posted 1 1/2 years ago about the lack of printing and I have been following along, waiting for this to change. As it stands, my evaluation is:

1) The developers have staked out a philosophical position, being adamantly opposed to printing code
2) The developers are stone-deaf to their customers and those customers' valid request for a basic feature

This is what has happened.

1) I refused to license the application (I almost did and then found out that I could not print)
2) When my friends and coworkers ask about programming editors, I steer them specifically away from Sublime Text

I don't need to print very often. I can work around the issue. BUT ... I cannot support a product that has a development organization so closed to external suggestions for improvements.

Cost to the developers? I don't know. At least my license and I am pretty sure of 3 or 4 others (these people all purchased other editors, asked about Sublime Text, and I told them not to and why).

This will probably not break the bank, but I am sure I am not the only one who has steered potential purchasers away from this product.

I want to like Sublime Text; I used it exclusively for a solid two weeks and liked it. Enough that I almost spent the money without the missing print feature.

Apologists can ignore this message. I am not slamming Sublime Text because it cannot print. I am slamming it because the developers are not responsive to their user community. I just installed the latest Beta Build for Sublime Text 3 ... still no print feature.

I am done with the product, will not read the comment thread updates anymore. I have moved on, somewhat disappointed in what should have been a very positive experience.
+2
Hi John. I am also shopping around for an alternative. Any suggestion?
+1
Brackets.io seems very promising. It is written by professionals who actually listen to their customers and know a thing or two about printing (Adobe) and unlike Sublime it's open source/free software.

I'm not sure how mature it is because I didn't try it since the very early stage of development (I found it when I first found out that Sublime can't print and I started to look for alternatives) but now getting emails about new comments in this thread reminded me that maybe it's time to check it out again because surely it is going to be much more impressive than Sublime Text when it is finished and being open source is a real bonus too (no one will be able to block wanted features indefinitely because someone would just fork it on github and get over it).

It seems like Brackets.io is getting close to 1.0 release so it is actually a very good time to take a look at it. See: http://brackets.io/ and https://github.com/adobe/brackets#readme and http://www.youtube.com/user/CodeBrackets for more info.
John, I hope you haven't left just yet...

What text editor do you use? I use Coda mostly and a little bit of BBEdit.
+2
No, I am most likely gone.

I work primarily in Linux and Mac OS X. The draw of Sublime Text for me was using the same editor in both environments. ST has a lot of really nice features.

But ... I am now as opposed to paying for ST as the developers (apparently) are in listening to their customers.

I speak with my wallet. When my opinions are sought, I provide them. Cost to the developers? ~$350. Probably chump change, but they won't have my chump change.

Sigh
+1
Given that this is the 7th highest voted feature request (out of 4,161), I can't imagine why the developers wouldn't implement it. Otherwise, there is no need to allow users to vote...as the votes mean nothing.
I pay for apps that I like to support the developers. I was falling in love with this text editor and was about to purchase a license when I realized that there is no print function! Really??? 2 years of users voting for this basic feature and nothing? Why? The developers should at least give a reason why they're not putting this on the conveyor belt. 
+1
2 years of users voting for this basic feature and nothing?

Actually, it's been 3 years.

-6
You guys should grab Microsoft Word - I hear it's great for printing. Professional programmers and developers have literally zero need to print. But, if in the 1/1000000000 times you need to print your code occurs, you can copy and paste into dozens of other editors built for writers and not programmers.

This is built for professionals, not scrubs.
+4
you can copy and paste into dozens of other editors built for writers and not programmers. This is built for professionals, not scrubs.

Quite literally the first sentence on the Sublime Text webpage says: "Sublime Text is a sophisticated text editor for code, markup and prose." [emphasis added]

And you know, when you are a professional who writes prose (which also includes software and hardware documentation) then in the Real World you sometimes (by which I mean quite often, really) need to print it for reviews and proofreading - end of story.

So here goes your argument that this editor is directed only to programmers (as if it mattered, really).

The point is that there are over 1100 votes (which translates to almost 80 thousand USD worth of licensing fees) for such a simple feature that has been requested for 3 years now that one really has to wonder what this userecho is for if the developers completely ignore the needs of their clients and if trying to help them with suggestions isn't just a complete waste of our time.

But what I personally find the most interesting are people who get angry at others for wanting this feature. You act as if you specifically were looking for a text editor that couldn't print, found only Sublime Text and now you worry that they will add printing and you'll have to find some other editor that cannot print (if there is any other editor out there lacking such a basic and simple feature).

Personally I don't go into requests for features that I don't need and ask developers to not implement it but strangely for printing many people feel obliged to do exactly that. For example I don't waste time commenting the background transparency feature request which I consider to be not only completely useless but also a very annoying and distracting feature for anyone doing any serious work but if people want it then I don't care, as long as it's optional.

Maybe that's the problem: do you thing that the printing would be mandatory? If so then let me clarify: this thread is all about optional printing feature. Don't need it - don't use it. Simple as that.

Or are you against printing for some philosophical reasons? You want to stop people print to save trees? What if we promise to use only recycled paper? Would you let us print then?
Good post rsp.

The fact that some of the posters here are developers and are happy to say "you're asking for it but you don't need it so you don't get it" is a bit worrying. Do they say that to their customers? Probably won't be developing very long if that's the case.

I had to do a software refresh a year or two ago for my last company. That was about 200 Windows users. Sublime Text made it to the long list for evaluation but didn't make it to the short list because some of users wanted to print. The authors of Sublime Text don't seem to care. That's absolutely fine. They can write what they want. Users can buy what they want.

Our company was primarily Windows based so we went with Notepad++. Notepad++ was free but that was low on the consideration. We would pay whatever we needed if the tools improved our users productivity. The users seemed happy enough. I was always wondering what I was missing from Sublime Text. Too busy to investigate though.


-2
So, after realizing I couldn't print in SublimeText, I copied my text into MSWord to print it. I had to reformat it and scale fonts and jack with it just to get it to print normally. Line wrapping was a pain... 

What you are saying is, you buy a text editor, now go use our competition (another text editor), or another paid product (MSWord) to print. Come on!

Your customers are asking for a feature. A damn simple feature. You are telling them to take a hike!

And implying the professional programmers/developers don't print is naive. I have 20+ years experience in software development. I want to print! Telling me I am unprofessional in unprofessional in and of itself.
-3
"I copied my text into MSWord to print it"

There is no way that MSWord is the right tool to print plain text. It is not intended for plain text, it is intended for rich text.

So yes, of course, your experience in using MSWord to print plain text was a poor experience.

For whatever seriousness was involved in @Zachary Bricker's post it was suggesting that if someone's ultimate aim is to produce a printed document then a Word Processor, like MSWord, is the appropriate tool to **write** in. Not copying and pasting plain text from a tool optimised to handle plain text, like ST or any other text editor, into a tool optimised to hand rich text, like MSWord.

I am a little surprised that this was not something you already knew after 20+ years but the list of things I should probably know, but don't, is probably a long list so I am not claiming superiority of overall knowledge. After all I don't know what I don't know.

I am not commenting, in any way, on the matter of ST printing. Just that pasting plain text into MSWord is always a poor experience and should be avoided when possible and doing so seems, to me, to have never been the intent of @Zachary Bricker's post. 

If the inadvisability of pasting plain text into MSWord was something new you learned then the experience is not a complete waste.
If Sublime Text had a print feature like everybody wanted, no one would attempt pasting into MS Word. :-)

Surprisingly, at least on Linux, a word processor (I use LibreOffice, mainly) seems to be the only software which can print plain text properly. Among the text editors, I think only Komodo does a decent job of it.

It would really be nice to have SublimeText print. I mean... it's not only for source code, sometimes I (and, I am sure, most programmers) use the text editor to write simple texts which they need to printout.
+3
Given that I earn thousands (yes, several) of dollars every month for programming and developing, I dare say I am a professional. I'm curious where you stand (skiddie maybe?), and whether it isn't you who is a scrub. 

In any case, now that we are done with personal attacks and how only noobs and losers need to print, and how of course everyone who does it differently than you is a noob and a loser, we can get back on track. 

Like Sherwin said in another post: "I pay for apps that I like to support the developers. I was falling in love with this text editor and was about to purchase a license when I realized that there is no print function! Really??? 2 years of users voting for this basic feature and nothing?" I agree wholeheartedly with Sherwin. I pay for my software. I only buy software that I support the developers for. I have no issues shelling out the money, but I don't see why I should pay almost the same sum an operating system costs, when users scream for a feature and get shat in the face ("you bloody scrub only mouthbreathing idiots print! learn2code"). That is the underlying issue here. If I ask for a feature and have to fight with scrubs who fling insults around (because someone wants to print), then I am not going to throw my money around either.
+1
Surely OSX, Windows and Linux have OS-wide printing APIs, so adding a 'print' command that initiates the default print feature of the OS isn't a biggie...
+2
Really, a text editor without printing?  I don't know about the developers who wrote this editor, but many times I print a section of code out and go study it and fix it, make it better, etc...

If the Sublime developers are trying to save the trees by not having a "Print" functionality, I suggest they start by adding print functionality to Sublime.  I have wasted more paper using the cut and paste into another editor, only to find that the lines wrapped wrong, or font is poor, then I end up reprinting.... the cycle continues...    

+2
Our entire dev team switched to Sublime from Netbeans and then when it came time to do a code review of some of our latest products we naturally went to file -> print to find its not there!!!!
Having to use Atom now.

I'll miss you Sublime :(
Christo, I know exactly what you feel.

The funny thing is that when the official position on printing in Sublime Text is to use some other editor just for that, then you start trying other editors to print, maybe you start liking those editors even more or just find them good enough and stop using ST at all to avoid context switching between two apps with basically the same functionality.

Some of those editors unlike Sublime Text are actually open-source which means that not only you can save $70 but can actually implement or pay to implement any functionality that they need.

Personally I wouldn't take time to evaluate Atom.io and Brackets.io editors if it wasn't for the fact that I was looking for a nice editor that can print text that I've written in Sublime Text. I wonder how many other people did the same.

Could you please share how Atom is working for your dev team? I'd like to know because I'm thinking about it too. Thanks.
I am wondering where this "... the official position on printing in Sublime Text is ..." is documented?
Has there really been an announcement from Jon or someone on the ST team on this point?
Can someone link to it? I am genuinely interested.