[TxMt] Re: C Library bundle MONSTER

[Jacob Rus]

William D. Neumann wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Jacob Rus wrote:
>> 6. I'm going to remove this new bundle tomorrow if there isn't a very 
>> compelling reason not to.
> 
> And the compelling reason to remove it is what, exactly?

Three reasons:

1. It serves very little useful need.  A user needs to type the full 
name of the function in order to use it, and so it saves exactly 1 typed 
character per parameter (you hit ⇥ instead of '(' after typing function 
name, and then hit ⇥ again instead of ', ').  It is like using a hammer 
to sand wood smooth; yes, it may be possible in some cases, and yes it 
may not permanently harm the hammer (other than emotionally), but that 
no reason to do it.

2. The things which are in the subversion repository represent the 
consensus of the TextMate community.  When something gets in there, it 
says that it is fit for use, and it is reasonable to expect new bundle 
developers to emulate existing bundles.  The more of these types of 
bundles get into the repository, the more users will be justified in 
saying "if his can go in, why not mine", etc.

3. It is not impossibly difficult to make a completion command which is 
vastly more useful, can be pushed into the existing C bundle (meaning I 
don't need to go to my list and filter something else out), works the 
way users coming from other editors would expect it to, is more flexible 
(i.e. can be adapted for unanticipated libraries), and is just in every 
respect better.

4. I'll toss in a fourth reason: it's inelegant.  Its very existence 
bothers the soul of this TextMate user.

"It does no harm" is not a compelling reason to include extra confusion 
and mental overhead.

> * In the current state of the world, it's really not that large of a 
> file, plus once it's pulled in via svn, that's it... it's been 
> downloaded.  And unless significant changes are made to it, any updates 
> are going to be barely noticable (especially in comparison to the 
> bundles like Latex and Subversion which seem to get modified constantly).
> 
> * It doesn't seem to affect startup time on my machine whether it's been 
> filtered out or not.
> 
> * It doesn't appear to conflict with any other bundles, though I haven't 
> looked at this too closely.

I don't care about any of these reasons.

Mainly, it should have never been added.  There was no discussion before 
it went in, and I would imagine that within 3-4 days, a better solution 
will exist, as there are plenty of enterprising users on this list who 
could make such a thing happen.

-Jacob