Editor recommendations for new users.

[Jerry via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:42:40 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Jerry wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 18:08:52 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner 
>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The install requirement is arbitrary, and why 20MB? It just 
>> seems like you are trying to advertise that program for some 
>> reason.
>
> Because of the programs recommended until that post nothing was 
> below that while meeting the other requirements (there were 
> others in the same range, vim being one). The (later) DlangIDE 
> recommendation, however, lowered that to about ~5MB (beating 
> both my recommendation and vim in the process).

It's one of the most useless requirements in that list though. 
The only reason people mention install size is to boast about it. 
I think he just didn't want to install something like Visual 
Studio which takes 10+ GB.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> So replace me with anyone.
>>
>>>> You'd have to have a really shitty laptop for it to be an 
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Not relevant.
>>
>> It is relevant, shit, even with a shitty laptop you can 
>> upgrade the hdd and then it becomes a non-issue anyways.
>
> Your argument implicitly assumed a specific reason (albeit a 
> generally sensible one) as to why low install size was a (must) 
> requirement (physical storage limitations being only one 
> possible reason; shared devices with fixed disk quotas or 
> devices owned by the university with certain policies being 
> other possibilities). That is why I didn't (and don't) think it 
> as relevant to the specific point about being as low as 
> possible I was making.

Fancy way of agreeing with me, not sure what you are even going 
on about anymore if you agree.