I find it a bit amusing that the programmers write the following
about the last version upgrade:
""This version has a tonne of new features""
Creating a simple, get out of your way wordprocessor that cant do
a few things very well seems at odds with feature bloat when you cram
more and more features into each release.
I dunno, to me being bloat free isn't the same as having few features - it's more about how tight those features are, how thinly they are implemented, and how much it avoids creeping into additional things once it has reached high feature density in the initial narrow focus. E.g. I wouldn't consider curl bloated. It supports damn near every transfer protocol a lunch table of engineers could think to name, has a boatload of options and knobs to do what you want with all of those, and is hundreds of thousands of lines of code... but at the same time is ultimately a couple of MB, sticks to the narrow job of "transferring data with URLs", and keeps a simple interface without feeling the need expand to be the place to go for every related task too like e.g. a bloated browser would.
And this is the problem with calling software bloated. Everyone has a different idea of what features are useful and what features just increase the size and complexity of the software without adding value.
has a lot more information and some screenshots.
I find it a bit amusing that the programmers write the following about the last version upgrade:
""This version has a tonne of new features""
Creating a simple, get out of your way wordprocessor that cant do a few things very well seems at odds with feature bloat when you cram more and more features into each release.