On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:53:59PM +0200, l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

[...]

> Maybe sometimes completion is not working as it should, nothing is perfect, 
> but globally I think that it saves time more than its wastes.

Then just use it and be happy. And just accept that some
(me, among others) are happier without :-)

Yes, I've tried it. Yes, I think it's technically nifty.
But no, it doesn't mesh well with the way I work. Even
if it were bug-free, it wouldn't be "my" thing.

I live by the command line, and there are roughly two classes
of things I do: those I do very often, where history search
is just unbeatable, and those I do rarely. For those I have
a man page open, sometimes a notebook (in Emacs, but I disgress)
to take notes and I proceed slowly.

The top of the first class are candidates for automation and
scripting.

In the first class, I don't need autocompletion, since I know
what I'm doing (heck, my muscle memory nearly knows. In the
second class, autocompletion is a train wreck waiting to happen:
I really *want* to know why each piece is there.

The only really useful autocompletion is actually file path
autocompletion, and I have that without any extra packages.

> It's probably more a conceptual/philosophical approach here ;)

For me it isn't. It is an eminently practical issue.

Cheers
-- t

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to