3 ms·

>> "never combine" seems to be an anti-pattern For me anything other than "Never combine" is an anti-pattern. Every application instance should have its own t

>> "never combine" seems to be an anti-pattern For me anything other than "Never combine" is an anti-pattern. Every application instance should have its own taskbar button that I can identify by looking at it. >> if you hide search, I think you can get about 8 non-collapsed windows. do you really need more than that? I have a huge ultra-wide monitor. I can easily get 20+ non-collapsed window buttons on the taskbar. Combined taskbar window buttons waste my time and impair my productivity.

munk-a 4y ago
I don't think either approach is an anti-pattern - different use cases will be useful for different users. I've found combining application instances to be quite useful since I use a lot of applications with no internal instance switching (PuTTY is the biggest offender here) but to each their own. This setting being a setting just felt like a good idea.
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
  >> I don't think either approach is an anti-pattern - different use cases will be useful for different users. That's why I prefaced it with 'for me'. Other people can use works best for them. I know what works best for me.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    In my personal lexicon "anti-pattern" is a pretty universal term - X isn't an anti-pattern for Alice but not Bob - it's either an anti-pattern for everyone or it isn't an anti-pattern. So I think in my comment above I mostly just automatically omitted the "for me" when reading your original remark.
    - thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
      >> In my personal lexicon "anti-pattern" is a pretty universal term - X isn't an anti-pattern for Alice but not Bob - it's either an anti-pattern for everyone or it isn't an anti-pattern. I agree. svnpenn's comment characterized "Never combine" as an anti-pattern, but it is my preferred configuration. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to just say that "Never combine" is not an anti-pattern since many users prefer it for various reasons.

munk-a 4y ago

I don't think either approach is an anti-pattern - different use cases will be useful for different users. I've found combining application instances to be quite useful since I use a lot of applications with no internal instance switching (PuTTY is the biggest offender here) but to each their own. This setting being a setting just felt like a good idea.

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
>> I don't think either approach is an anti-pattern - different use cases will be useful for different users. That's why I prefaced it with 'for me'. Other people can use works best for them. I know what works best for me.
- munk-a 4y ago
  In my personal lexicon "anti-pattern" is a pretty universal term - X isn't an anti-pattern for Alice but not Bob - it's either an anti-pattern for everyone or it isn't an anti-pattern. So I think in my comment above I mostly just automatically omitted the "for me" when reading your original remark.
  - thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
    >> In my personal lexicon "anti-pattern" is a pretty universal term - X isn't an anti-pattern for Alice but not Bob - it's either an anti-pattern for everyone or it isn't an anti-pattern. I agree. svnpenn's comment characterized "Never combine" as an anti-pattern, but it is my preferred configuration. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to just say that "Never combine" is not an anti-pattern since many users prefer it for various reasons.