The IMproved bits of Vim should make it a better Vi, without becoming a
completely different editor. Extensions are done with a "Vi spirit".
Use the keyboard as much as feasible. The mouse requires a third hand, which we don't have. Many terminals don't have a mouse.
When the mouse is used anyway, avoid the need to switch back to the keyboard. Avoid mixing mouse and keyboard handling.
Add commands and options in a consistent way. Otherwise people will have a hard time finding and remembering them. Keep in mind that more commands and options will be added later.
A feature that people do not know about is a useless feature. Don't add obscure features, or at least add hints in documentation that they exists.
Minimize using CTRL and other modifiers, they are more difficult to type.
There are many first-time and inexperienced Vim users. Make it easy for them to start using Vim and learn more over time.
There is no limit to the features that can be added. Selecting new features is one based on (1) what users ask for, (2) how much effort it takes to implement and (3) someone actually implementing it.
VIM IS... HIGH SPEED AND SMALL IN SIZE *design-speed-size*
Using Vim must not be a big attack on system resources. Keep it small and
fast.
Computers are becoming faster and bigger each year. Vim can grow too, but no faster than computers are growing. Keep Vim usable on older systems.
Many users start Vim from a shell very often. Startup time must be short.
Commands must work efficiently. The time they consume must be as small as possible. Useful commands may take longer.
Don't forget that some people use Vim over a slow connection. Minimize the communication overhead.
Items that add considerably to the size and are not used by many people should be a feature that can be disabled.
Vim is a component among other components. Don't turn it into a massive application, but have it work well together with other programs.
If one is required to have a degree in the field they're posting on, where will the expertise on the implications of the 264th Rule of Aquisition of aquisition or the glitches in the newest Pikachu Digital Pet?
Of course, you're presupposing that having an official policy can preclude the development of language. This isn't quite the case: see for example the strictly conservative linguistic prescriptivism in France, carried out by institutions such as Académie française, who are charged with the final authority on French usage, and their total inability to prevent the pervasive influence of the English language on the French lexicon. Likewise, despite Strunk and White's steadfast insistence, "hopefully" continues to be used to mean something similar to "I hope".
The fact is, language changes, despite official regulation, and Wikipedia will exhibit those changes.
Hold on a minute. I don't think that's how evolution works.
The evolution of the bacteria is driven by natural selection. Natural selection is a wonderful and amazing force of nature; it has enabled the elephant with its all-purpose trunk, birds with aerodynamic and flight-sustaining wings, and humans with their vastly complex brain.
Natural selection has limitations, however. It is entirely blind to the future--it cannot even see one generation in advance. If a given mutation works out for an organism, it lives longer and has more offspring. Likewise, no organism can evolve to break the limitations of the proteins they are composed of, so don't expect sharks to develop propellors, regardless of the evolutionary advantage that may allow.
The cyanobacteria mentioned in the article thrive when their adaptations enable them to photosynthesize most effectively; this is how they gain energy and propagate. It just so happens that these bacteria excrete conductive nanowires that might have exciting electronics applications. Even if this waste was enabling in their photosynthesis and allowed them to propagate more successfully, it is highly unlikely that mutating into a strand that magically wires useful circuits for human use would give them a significant evolutionary advantage.
Simply put, I just don't see these bacteria evolving into Intel's next competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
5. Failing code review results in you and/or your spouse being shot in the leg
I'm confused. Are we still talking about programmers?
It's called dsywindows.
If one is required to have a degree in the field they're posting on, where will the expertise on the implications of the 264th Rule of Aquisition of aquisition or the glitches in the newest Pikachu Digital Pet?
Of course, you're presupposing that having an official policy can preclude the development of language. This isn't quite the case: see for example the strictly conservative linguistic prescriptivism in France, carried out by institutions such as Académie française, who are charged with the final authority on French usage, and their total inability to prevent the pervasive influence of the English language on the French lexicon. Likewise, despite Strunk and White's steadfast insistence, "hopefully" continues to be used to mean something similar to "I hope". The fact is, language changes, despite official regulation, and Wikipedia will exhibit those changes.
...does it run Windows?
If it's running Linux...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
Hold on a minute. I don't think that's how evolution works.
The evolution of the bacteria is driven by natural selection. Natural selection is a wonderful and amazing force of nature; it has enabled the elephant with its all-purpose trunk, birds with aerodynamic and flight-sustaining wings, and humans with their vastly complex brain.
Natural selection has limitations, however. It is entirely blind to the future--it cannot even see one generation in advance. If a given mutation works out for an organism, it lives longer and has more offspring. Likewise, no organism can evolve to break the limitations of the proteins they are composed of, so don't expect sharks to develop propellors, regardless of the evolutionary advantage that may allow.
The cyanobacteria mentioned in the article thrive when their adaptations enable them to photosynthesize most effectively; this is how they gain energy and propagate. It just so happens that these bacteria excrete conductive nanowires that might have exciting electronics applications. Even if this waste was enabling in their photosynthesis and allowed them to propagate more successfully, it is highly unlikely that mutating into a strand that magically wires useful circuits for human use would give them a significant evolutionary advantage.
Simply put, I just don't see these bacteria evolving into Intel's next competitor.