On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:36:19 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I wanted to take these two sentences, isolate them, and then have
> people read them together as this is the main thrust of my argument.
> It is because they are all shipping basic editors people are
> constantly asking for more features in each of the basic editors. My
> point is that you can have one editor perform several different tasks.
> By focusing on that one editor you can have a robust editor in each
> application.
> Further, that is why I constantly point out that an editor thrown
> into an application to be "good enough" will never compare to an editor
> which is programmed independently.
I agree completely here Steve but I can't help but wonder to myself
why things turned out the way that they have for windows based e-mail and
news clients. Most other applications interestingly, simply either provide
a non-configurable hook to windows notepad, or the windows default editor,
or they provide a configurable hook for which editor you wish to use. They
almost never provide their own editor. They may provide their own internal
viewer but never an editor. I was able to configure my file-manager to use
the editor I wanted to. It was the same for 4NT and the same for Opera
among others. Because of this I *do* use my preferred editor in all
applications except my e-mail client and newsreader.
<begin speculation> I think the deviation from your more ideal
paradigm is based on the fact that most windows based editors don't
provide advanced e-mail type editing functions especially with respect to
quoting. Also, an integrated editor, perhaps works better in ways
discussed earlier. I would think that tighter integration of the in-built
text editor as well as the relatively basic editing demands for e-mail and
news message composing perhaps kindled the whole thing. </end speculation>
But if one steps back and looks at the greater picture in windows
software there is a horrid trend that goes in the same spirit and this is
largely as a result of the software developers efforts to cater to the
newbies needs. Unfortunately a great segment of users do remain relative
newbies and never mature. They therefore use an application and expect it
to support the ability to do all possible tasks directly or indirectly
related to the applications core purpose. Enter the monolithic app.
IMO, after all of this rambling, is that both paradigms do have their
place and it gets very uncomfortable for each user type when one paradigm
drowns out another. This is why the real savvy users gravitate to Unix
while the newbies love windows and look all mystified at Unix. There is a
place for both the componentised approach and the monolithic approach. The
savvy, power user quickly recognises the shortcomings of the monolithic
approach and evangelizes the componentised approach. The newbie however
finds a monolithic app a godsend and a friend indeed. :)
Version 2 of TB! seems to be on a monolithic road of development and
this is not good considering it's prime userbase. As Steve rightly said,
the userbase interested in the monolithic slant to development are
already using freeware they are happy with.
--
-=Allie=- | Using The Bat! v1.39 Beta/1
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6)
[ Insanity is hereditary. You get it from your kids. ]
____
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
