Peter Lairo wrote:
> Oh the high and mighty programmers. You remind me of puffed-up royalty
> who try to convince the "common people" that only blue blooded persons
> could possibly understand the complexities of running a state.
>
> Blake, why don't you live in an arab country (or any
> monarchy/dictatorship) where there are others who think they are the
> only ones capable of making descisions/judgements because they are "in
> the know".
Yes, I think non-programmers shouldn't criticize the time it takes to
complete a programming task. Is this really such an absurd concept
> I know that as programmer, you are frequently exposed to criticism -
> and that can be frustrating/alienating/etc. I understand. But, there
> is no reason for the arrogance and cynicism you are displaying. I
> makes you look weak and insecure.
I'm displaying arrogance and cynicism? You just pointed to wordpad as
proof that Mozilla's editor shouldn't have any annoying bugs!
> PS. If making a decent text editor is so hard (as judged by you
> sarcastic response to my inquiry), why then are there (and always have
> been) a plethora of share-/freeware text editors? It seems that every
> beginning programmer starts out with programming a text editor.
Because (a) it's not hard to plop down a standard Windows rich textbox
control and start extending it (many of those text editors you mention
are just frameworks around a standard Windows control, with some added
functionality, and (b) many of those editors can't do half the things
that Mozilla's can.
--Blake
>
>
>
> Blake Ross wrote:
>
>>> We're accepting patches. Oh, but you're not a programmer. Thanks
>>> for judging the difficulty of a programming task, though!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Blake
>>
>>>
>>> Mozilla having problems with text editing really baffles me. I
>>> thought text editing would be one of the simples excercises - even
>>> DOS 5.1 edit.exe and Windoze 3.1 notepad could do it without any
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Blaming it on screen resolution is just lame.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
