Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Oct 2010 09:13 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 446249
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What about vi ...
by TheGZeus on Thu 21st Oct 2010 13:52
in reply to "RE[2]: What about vi ..."
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-10
Admitted vi is a CLI based application. As a consequence the HIGs are not compulsory. But Apple has been completely free to add Apple key bindings to vi.
Apple did not. Why?
Simply because users of the vi expect vi to behave like vi.
I as a user of jEdit expect jEdit to behave like jEdit. I also expect Netbeans to behave like Netbeans. And so on.
If I want to use an editor which only exists on OS X, I will use neither jEdit nor Gnu Emacs. I intentionally mention the Gnu Emacs editor to show non native key bindings are not Java's fault.
If I want to create applications, which are garanteed to run only on OS X, I won't use Java ;-)
pica