20 ms·
No, it would still be notepad, but a higher quality one where especially users who don’t know better wouldn’t have to suffer as much from bad/lacking functional
by eviks 1y ago
No, it would still be notepad, but a higher quality one where especially users who don’t know better wouldn’t have to suffer as much from bad/lacking functionality
- arghwhat 1y agoMore features ≠ higher quality.
- eviks 1y agoBut lack of useful features = lower quality, so you're just arguing for a permanent state of poor quality for some strange change-resisting reason and the fact that alternatives exist (so? why should that stop your alternative from becoming better?)
- arghwhat 1y agoNo. Adding superfluous features to an intentionally minimal baseline program defacto reduces it's quality by making it less suitable for its task and more likely to have defects. There's decades worth of options for fatter editors out there. Tools like nano (and now edit) is ubiquitous because they are not such editors, and people need a reliable baseline without such features.
- niutech 1y agoThere are already: Notepad3 (https://sourceforge.net/projects/notepad3/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/notepad3/) or metapad (https://liquidninja.com/metapad/ https://liquidninja.com/metapad/).
- eviks 1y agoBut they aren't part of Windows, so "users who don’t know better" continue to suffer!