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.

▲

oh_my_goodness 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Sci-fi premise. Somewhere [1] there is a message board where developers openly celebrate those feelings of dislike and disdain toward users.

On that board, silently deleting a user's files is obviously justified. What would be out of line is complaining about software silently deleting user files.

[1] Long ago. Galaxy far away.

▲

dlisboa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Insane? Abhorrent?

Relax for a second. Get some perspective.

	▲	jeremyjh an hour ago \| parent [-]
		My perspective is that the Neovim maintainer implemented a change that would delete data created by another program on other people's computers. They knew this would happen in advance, and it was done anyway.

▲

kebman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

	▲	overfeed 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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".

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]