3 ms·
A counterpoint might be that Vim, Mutt, and Procmail are all highly popular, long-lived projects. Making the case that code quality isn't the be-all and all-all
by mmahemoff 15y ago
A counterpoint might be that Vim, Mutt, and Procmail are all highly popular, long-lived projects. Making the case that code quality isn't the be-all and all-all.
- erikpukinskis 15y agoOf course not. It's probably not even the #1 priority for more than a handful of projects. But I think the relevant question to pretty much everyone is: "do investments in code quality pay off?" Just because Vim, Mutt, and Procmail are successful doesn't mean their lack of investment in CQ hasn't hurt them.
- ge0rg 15y agoHowever, low quality tends to surface anyway. With mutt, several issues come to my mind, like: * broken transparency (and trailing spaces in copy&pasted emails) when run in screen. * the hoops you have to jump through if you want to script certain aspects (like opening new mails in their own terminals, http://op-co.de/blog/posts/mulit-window_mutt/ http://op-co.de/blog/posts/mulit-window_mutt/)
- jacobr 15y agoFew people seem to contribute to the actual Vim code base though, considering the amount of coders using the software. Several complete rewrites have been started - with a better code quality perhaps the efforts could've been put into Vim development.