Editor recommendations for new users.

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 28 August 2017 at 20:48:44 UTC, Ryion wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 18:08:52 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
> wrote:
>> It's nearly ten times the size, so yeah, it is relative to 
>> Textadept.
>>
>>> You can say the same thing in comparison with vim which is 
>>> only a 2MB install size,
>>> 20MB in comparison is gigantic.
>>
>> Indeed, but that's only the raw executable, not the full 
>> package (which includes things like syntax highlighting), 
>> which adds another 26MB.
>> But, yes, Textadept and vim+vim-core (Gentoo speak) are both 
>> gigantic required to bare bones vim. But bare bones vim 
>> doesn't fulfill the syntax highlighting requirement IIRC.
>>
>>> The requirements are rather vague, you can interpret it in a 
>>> number of ways.
>>
>> The sensible interpretation imho is "as low an install 
>> footprint as possible while still fulfilling the other 
>> requirements". I'm not aware of anything below ~20MB install 
>> footprint that fulfills the other requirements, but I'd be 
>> interested if you know any.
>
> As the OP did not state any requirement, he can consider 2GB as 
> small.

If there's nothing significantly smaller that fits the other 
requirements, yes.
As those exists, no.

> Vague requirements do not invalidate the recommendation.

I don't consider the requirement to be vague if taken together 
with the other *must* requirements. On its own, I would agree 
with you.

>
> Laptops have 1TB harddrives as good as standard.
>
> Even on a "small" 128GB SSD, it pales in comparison to the 10GB 
> that Windows alone takes. Let alone the page file, swapfile, 
> hibernation file etc...

All red herrings.

>
>>> I wouldn't consider 200MB gigantic in comparison to 20MB 
>>> cause there is literally no difference of use for me.
>>
>> The thread is about OP's requirements.
>>
>>> You'd have to have a really shitty laptop for it to be an 
>>> issue.
>>
>> Not relevant.
>
> As the OP has not stated the size of the laptops it needs to be 
> installed upon, the discussion about 180MB vs 20MB or 2MB is 
> irrelevant.

Except I'm not arguing that ~20MB is small. It's just small 
compared to 180MB in this specific context as both fulfill the 
other requirements.
If I knew of a 2MB recommendation that fits the other 
requirements (such as easy to install) I would say 20MB is 
gigantic and consider my own recommendation to be invalid.

> We are not talking a 4GB Visual Studio installation. And its 
> 160MB for the 32Bit version. :)

You say that particular discussion is irrelevant, yet you pursue 
it.

>
> So if the OP has other requirements, HE can state them in this 
> topic, instead of you making up ideas as to what YOU consider 
> small.

I'm not making up any ideas about what's small in terms of a 
fixed number; I've merely argued about size in relationship to 
each other, i.e. 180MB is gigantic only in relation to the 20MB 
under the assumption that both fulfill all other requirements. 
With regards to the requirements I've stated what I consider the 
sane interpretation, but if the OP clarifies that point to a hard 
number, that would indeed be helpful.

> Your comments are irrelevant without knowing the OP his 
> expectations.

I consider OP's expectations to be clear from his posted 
requirements, so until OP has indeed clarified, I disagree.

>
> So again please do not distract from the topic.

Why "again"? You've not stated so before AFAICT.
Regardless, I disagree that discussing the validity of 
recommendations in a thread specifically made to gather such 
recommendations is a distraction from the topic; I would contend 
that it lies at the heart of the topic.