The Great "Hard Return" Debate

[Steve Lamb]

Thursday, November 04, 1999, 7:38:37 PM, Ralph wrote:
> I believe that the proper role of a mail program includes writing
> messages as well as reading them.

    Writing a message is editing text.

> don't expect the editor to have the macros, hex editing and highlighting
> functions that are included in some of my other text editors, nor do I
> expect the PMMail message viewer to properly display MSWord or other
> specially formatted documents.

    Funny, I rather like the highlighting that vim provides for mail and news.
 It does not, however, display other specially formatted documents or does hex
editing.  It is a text editor, nothing more.

> I find it equally odd that some people find it preferable to use two or
> three different programs to perform functions which should be appropriately
> be performed within a single program.

    Really?  How many editors do you use?  How many times have you been in one
editor and fumble on a key sequence of another?  How many times have you
wished the functions of one editor were in the other?  How about any other
feature in every other program?  Don't you wish you could use a different
spell checker with PMMail since PMMail's sucks rocks?  Or, vice versa, if you
think PMMail's kicks ass, don't you wish you could use it elsewhere?

    So now instead of using one editor you're going to go to three or four
different authors and ask each of them to program the same thing three or four
different times.  That is foolish.  The most efficient use of your time and
energy and that of the various authors is to break the program down into the
logical component pieces and only do one, define communication with the rest,
and let you decide what is best for *YOU*.

    Editing text is different than database work.  That is what a mail program
is.  So the transport of said mail and the maintenance of it is up to the mail
program.  So transport (SMTP, POP, IMAP, APOP, etc), filtering, management of
the database and viewing all fall under the MUA.

    Since email is just text that falls into the text editor domain.  Just
like a text editor would suck as an MUA or a spell checker.  Two completely
different tasks.

    But I mentioned spell checking for a reason.  It is a completely different
task than editing text.  So putting a spell checker into a text editor is a
bad idea.  Just as it is a bad idea to put a text editor into a mail client.
Just at it is a dumb idea to put a mail client into a web browser.  Just as it
is dumb to put a web browser into an OS!

    PMMail is a kick ass mail client.  It needs a lot of work, however, *ON
THE MAIL CLIENT.*  Not the editor, not the spell checker, *just* the client.
By insisting that the authors work on tasks which are computationally
unrelated to the client, you're asking them to spend time really programming
three things.  A mail client, a text editor and a spell checker.  As a result,
as has been stated time and again, when you slap things together like that the
end result is less than if you took the components and got the best you could
for each.

    PMMail is a good mail client.  It could be a lot better.  If it were it
would be the best.

    vim is a kick ass text editor.  *NO* mail editor will ever come up to the
standard set by vim when it comes to editing mail.  Why?  Mail is text and vim
excels at editing text.  That is all it does.  That is all it needs to do.

    aspell is a kick ass spell checker.  *NO* mail editor will ever come up to
the standard set by aspell when it comes to spell checking.  Why?  Spell
checking is basically several very complex search and replace algorithms.
aspell excels at it.  That is all it does.  That is all it needs to do.

    So, there you are, kicking and screaming that PMMail's editor should have
a decent reflow for quotes.  I'm sitting here, laughing.  PMMail does.  vim.
When I use mutt, mutt has it.  vim.  When I use slrn, slrn has it.  vim.

    And while other people are cursing PMMail's spell checker I'm sitting here
laughing.  It has a good one.  aspell.  When I use mutt, mutt has it.  aspell.
When I use slrn, slrn has one.  aspell.  When I just write poetry or stories,
my editor there has it.  aspell.

    Also, because vim has context highlighting for different programming
languages it is a simple deal to have it use those facilities to have context
highlighting for mail and news.

    Now here is the important part, Ralph.  Say someone comes along with a
kick ass email client that does everything I want.  It does multiple accounts
perfectly, awesome filtering, IMAP/POP/SMTP all there, etc, etc, etc.  But...
its editor sucks and it has no spell checking.  All I have to do is ask the
author to program in a hook for an external editor which, I'm sure you agree,
is much easier than programming a kick ass editor and a kick ass spell checker
on top of a kick ass mail client, guess what.

    It has a kick ass mail editor.  vim.  It has a kick ass spell checker.
aspell.  I lose nothing.  Meanwhile, there you would be, kicking and
screaming, trying to get him to implement those features all over again.

    If you don't understand after that, nothing will get you to understand
because you are too used to mediocrity in all things you do that you won't
grasp this very basic and simple concept.  You'd rather fight each author for
the same things over and over and OVER instead of being able to take it all
with you.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------