4 ms·

This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction that results from not having taken the time to make sure that the criticism lines up with the thing being criticised. > I

This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction that results from not having taken the time to make sure that the criticism lines up with the thing being criticised. > It blows my mind that there's so much devotion to the tool first, problems second The problem is clearly outlined here: "Manipulating raw ipynb files is difficult and unergonomic." OP is not fiddling with his or her editor configuration because of any undue focus/deficiency regarding Neovim. The deficiency is in the Jupyter notebooks editors. In other words... Problem: Jupyter sucks; my thoughts are always slowed down by having to squeeze them through a low-bandwidth link and the ergonomics hurdles that comprise basic text inputs--I want to go fast, but with Jupyter, I can't. Their solution: This.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
And conveniently, the solution is the editor that the author has already invested a lot of time into. What are the odds? PS, describing my comment as knee-jerk is unhelpfully dismissive. I'm always keen to engage, and always happy to acknowledge when I'm wrong. :)
- myfavoritedog 4y ago
  Conveniently, the solution is the editor that thousands of developers have taken time to improve over decades so that the author didn't have to start from scratch. What are the odds that the solution involved a popular, mature tool that the developer could leverage?
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  To answer your question: > What are the odds? Very good, actually. You seem (and seemed) to be unaware how dismissive your original comment was. In fact that was the entire point of the response. To take issue with that response on the grounds it itself is "unhelpfully dismissive" involves layers of irony.
  - pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
    Disregard this, I suck cocks.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The odds ew pretty damn good. 1. You’re talking about an editor that has been popular across multiple decades and across many many generations of technologies. 2. The editor they’re already using obviously already does things in ways they like. That’s why they are using it. So the odds that their editor will perform the job well for them is also pretty high.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

And conveniently, the solution is the editor that the author has already invested a lot of time into. What are the odds? PS, describing my comment as knee-jerk is unhelpfully dismissive. I'm always keen to engage, and always happy to acknowledge when I'm wrong. :)

myfavoritedog 4y ago
Conveniently, the solution is the editor that thousands of developers have taken time to improve over decades so that the author didn't have to start from scratch. What are the odds that the solution involved a popular, mature tool that the developer could leverage?
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
To answer your question: > What are the odds? Very good, actually. You seem (and seemed) to be unaware how dismissive your original comment was. In fact that was the entire point of the response. To take issue with that response on the grounds it itself is "unhelpfully dismissive" involves layers of irony.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  Disregard this, I suck cocks.
rhaway84773 4y ago
The odds ew pretty damn good. 1. You’re talking about an editor that has been popular across multiple decades and across many many generations of technologies. 2. The editor they’re already using obviously already does things in ways they like. That’s why they are using it. So the odds that their editor will perform the job well for them is also pretty high.