> The time of monolithic pieces of software is long buried in the past.
> Today it's all composable by hundreds of small libs, perhaps even loaded
> at runtime. Ever even heard of web mashups? Application servers?

Well, unfortunately Haskell does not yet support dynamic linking very 
well. (At least it now has /some/ support for it...)

>> How hard would it be to allow each directory to contain a file saying
>> what commands each key should be bound to?
>
> with a Makefile file in each directory each time you press make on the
> command-line it makes that part. ;)

Yeah, that could work.

>> The whole point of a text editor is for looking at text.
>
> no, the whole point of a text *editor* is for *editing* text.

Well, if that's your attitude, then surely ed is good enough for you?

>> Why make it look awful when you can make it look good? Why make your
>> job harder when you can make it easier?
>
> Nobody is making it look awful. But between spending time making it look
> good and do nothing and looking awful and doing a shitton of stuff, you
> know what open-source developers will do...
>
> plus, looking awful does not your job harder. On the contrary: in my
> experience the most beautiful-looking text editors out there are usually
> the most featureless and useless there are. Why implement features that
> will make it complex and awful-looking? Better just have a simple
> interface and when the user wants to copy the next 5 long paragraphs and
> paste them 5 times they should do it manually by constant repetition of
> the basic, beautiful and simple mechanisms, rather than just typing
> y5}5p... clearly the latter is making your job far harder!

I can't even tell what the hell you're saying now. :-P

Post a reply to this message