Re: [gtk-list] Re: vi bindings for text widgets

[Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer cs nmsu edu>]

   Instead, I prefer that some apps use Vi-bindings, some apps have fairly simple
   (or not-so-simple) bindings, and that other apps have
user-definable bindings.

This would be the worst of all worlds.  I don't like VI, I don't use
VI, I don't want to learn VI.  I don't mind VI bindings being the
standard, but if they are I want to be able to reconfigure so I can
get my Emacs bindings.

   This will in all likelihood prevent code bloat from feature creep (and yes,
   disk bloat from number of editors will probably increase).  If we keep asking
   for features from core widgets we will all end up with Vi editors the size of
   Microsoft Word.  Instead, concentrate on developing *extra* widgets for your
   code, or for distribution, that implement your desired functionality.  If you
   doubt the sense in this, look to the market in Windows for components.  Some
   of these components are quite complex, but most apps in Windows use just core
   functions.  This is the reason VB, Delphi, and now JavaBeans are very popular
   development enviroments.  The problem is in maintaining a balance between
   reduction of program size, with shared libraries implementing increased core
   functionality, and reduced complexity of the libraries themselves.

Bingo.  Have to be careful about what features to add; the
functionality/bloat ratio has to be kept high.  User-reconfigurability
seems like a good compromise.
-- 
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D.       Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science       FAX   -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University          http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer