Hello Steve Lamb,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:43:20 -0800 GMT your local time,
which was Thursday, January 13, 2000, 11:43:20 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> I think that scripting is not a panacea because as any interpreter it is not
>> much of efficiency by the definition. I prefer pre-compiled code.
Steve> I prefer being able to develop at the application level rather than the
Steve> system level. Each has their benefits, let's not get into that here.
sounds wise (g)
SL>>> No, word processing isn't just ASCII text.
>> How about HTML messages?
Steve> HTML isn't word processing. It is similar and as a result I advocate the
Steve> use of appropriate tools. I use both vim and macromedia's dreamweaver to do
Steve> the work. Of course, the latter, like the former, doesn't mangle my code like
Steve> every other editor out there which is why I advocate it.
dreamweaver/homeside is what I use if I get 'forced' into writing a
webside.
I try to ignore graphics(g)
Steve> By calling a single applications you have exactly one copy. By taking
Steve> that one model and "fixing" the problems on it in your own way you have as
Steve> many copies as there are programs.
>> Didn't noted that. I thought you advocate vim. Than all you need is user
>> definable keys in TB!'s editor?
Steve> No, I advocate User Choice. No, user definable keys will not work in
Steve> TB!'s editor. Hey, I want to pipe this text through a filter. Can't do it.
Steve> Damn, hard to bind a key for something I can't do in the first place. Forcing
Steve> the user to use the editor supplied is not user choice. Giving the user a
Steve> hook to use whatever editor he wants to use *IS* user choice. User definable
Steve> keys is configurability, not choice, since I am still using the same force-fed
Steve> editor.
>> Yes, because there is no need in it any more. Because delete line is a
>> relict of FORTRAN, ASM and EDLIN epoch when there were no blocks
>> and shift-arrow marking.
That wasnt the fault of the compilers but of the compiler writers.
They fixed up C/Pascal but Ms ignored Fortran.
One of the first things we did was allow this under Fortran and I had
whole sublibs just with bit/byte fiddles on screen and in files.
ABSOLUTELY no problem doing things like that..
I even had an assembler written interface to generate
'make files'... Ie compilers/compiles with links/links alone etc etc.
>> Than it will mean that I will be forced to learn another editor.
Steve> No, you will be forced to learn one *LESS* editor. You were forced to
Steve> learn one more editor because TB! included an editor and forced you to use it.
Steve> When you're outside TB! are you using TB!'s editor? No.
I cannot even remember learning it...
Steve> Let's cut to the chase, shall we? On Winfiles I counted a good ~70 email
Steve> clients of various capacities and ~50 programs dealing with news. Let's
Steve> figure 20 of those email programs aren't really clients and a good 30 of the
Steve> news programs are nothing more than binary extractors (I think that is about
Steve> right). That leaves a 50 email clients, 20 news clients all implementing
Steve> their own editor in their own way. That means to go through them all I have
Steve> to learn and evaluate 70 different editors. Not only is that a lot of
Steve> duplication in terms of binaries, it is also in code and programming time.
100% correct !
Best regards,
tracer
Using theBAT 1.39 Beta/1
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
