upvote

points

by jeremyjh6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby dlisboa6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Insane? Abhorrent?

Relax for a second. Get some perspective.

reply
upvoteby jeremyjh5 hours 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.
reply
upvoteby em-bee49 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
vim and neovim have different defaults for the undo file, if neovim overwrites a vim file then it can only be because the user changed the paths for both to be the same. in that case neovim had no way of knowing that the file was used by another program.
reply
upvoteby oh_my_goodness5 hours ago|
prev|
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.

reply
upvoteby kebman5 hours ago|
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?

reply
upvoteby overfeed5 hours 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".

reply
upvoteby 5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply