I am not a programmer, but on 2 occasions I was able to improperly fix (1 argument in 1 line stuff) very small bugs without really understanding how. I've also made a number converter (dec-bin-hex) at least twice. I know those aren't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice twice.

I'd say there's an issue here with language design having major tradeoffs, but maybe it's just a paradox*? Though I have found a language I like (even though I'm not learning it because other issues), so I know it's not impossible at least.

*= Like the people who could make something with less tradeoffs don't have the need/desire to do that, they just use the existing stuff. Though that is much more fitting for visual programming.

[–] jeremyparker 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

it's weird that it happened twice

Everyone who dabbles in programming eventually learns :q. Not everyone learns :wq.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I learned :q! first!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not everyone learns :x

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or ZZ

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh I don’t know that one, what’s it do?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Same as :wq and :x

Saves and quits.

[–] jeremyparker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wtf is this bullshit. When tf did vim start allowing you to do the same thing in more than one way

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

hmm, when was vim invented?...

[–] jeremyparker 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Vim wasn't invented, it spawned fully written and tested at the moment creation came into existence

That's why vi is already installed on every Linux system

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

of course!

no but i bet configurability was an early fearure