Remix.run Logo
▲ rlue 2 hours ago

The argument is that developers have a duty not to arbitrarily delete data on your system that you may have relied on that was produced by another program just because they’d like to replace it with something in their own format.

I don’t care if you’re volunteering your time; if you build something whose implied purpose and success depends on other people using it, you emphatically have a duty to those people not to silently destroy stuff that was there before your software was.

▲pdonis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's worth pointing out that vim is not "another program" as far as Neovim is concerned. It's an earlier version of the same program. Neovim is a fork of vim, not a totally different editor that happens to share part of a name.

▲goodmythical 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Forking creates new programs.

If I fork chromium, I do not get to claim that I am a chromium maintainer.

Vim and Neovim are two seperate programs.

▲SigmundA 2 hours ago | parent [-]

So maybe it should have two different undo files so both can be run side by side?

▲ 2 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲jeremyjh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It absolutely is another program, I can tell this because it has a different name. To run it I type "nvim" instead of "vim". I use different config files to control its behavior. I install a different package on my system when I want to use it on a new computer.

▲pdonis 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

If it really is another program with reference to vim, it should leave undo files made by vim alone.

If it's going to nuke vim's undo files, it can't hide behind "another program".

▲jeremyjh 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

That is the point.