Thread

1. dlisboa · 1790522895 · focus · HN ↗

   > the attitude that just because something is a persistent file on your filesystem that contains data that you might want is no reason for their program not to delete it meant they had no concept of a duty of care to their users.

   That's the wrong way to look at it. NeoVIM has a different concept of care for their users. They're optimizing for another kind of care, more in line with modern expectations, which VIM did not care about (hence the fork).

   It's not better or worse, just different.

   This same article could've been written about how VIM has no native LSP integration or autocomplete and they don't have duty or care for their users.

   1. jeremyjh · 1790525324 · focus · HN ↗

      It is insane that people are defending behavior that is clearly abhorrent just because they like the software. Are the claims even true? If they are, you should be updating your opinions about the person writing this software.

      1. kebman · 1790527338 · focus · HN ↗

         From Cambridge Dictionary:

         ```markdown

         abhorrent

         /əbˈhɒr(ə)nt/

         Abhorrent is an adjective that means morally very bad, hateful, or causing strong disgust and loathing.

         ```

         I realise that this causes strong disgust and loathing in you, but can you please expand upon how it's morally very bad to prioritise speed and ease of use over undelete capability in Neovim? Are you unable to make backups or use Git?

         1. overfeed · 1790528761 · focus · HN ↗

            You are presenting a false dilemma: Neovim could have easily done both without the deletion. Willful negligence is morally very bad when it can cause user harm.

            > Are you unable to make backups or use Git?

            Ah yes, the old perty theft justification as applied to intentionally-inflicted data loss; "They won't mind if I take/delete this, they (should) have insurance".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.