Talk:AutoHotkey: Automatic directory-specific configuration / actions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
One more thing - there are some functions in Total Commander which could be removed because there are plugins which do a better job. --[[User:Lefteous|Lefteous]] 06:32, 27 Aug 2005 (EST) | One more thing - there are some functions in Total Commander which could be removed because there are plugins which do a better job. --[[User:Lefteous|Lefteous]] 06:32, 27 Aug 2005 (EST) | ||
As I wrote on the public forum everything could be done by these scripts - the whole programs. The downside is that the quality of the program really suffers under this frickelware. | |||
Revision as of 11:41, 27 August 2005
Producing workarounds means a good solutions becomes unlikely - think about it! --Lefteous 01:35, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)
--Hacker 06:03, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)
I did. I prefer working workarounds to elegant unimplemented solutions. ;-) Maybe you should withdraw your plugins and wait for their functionality to be implemented in TC? Think about it!
--Hacker 06:08, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)
Also, maybe Christian should rather spend his time on non-workaroundable issues if the workaround is usable.
The difference between a plugin and this frickelware is that plugins are integrated. As a computer scientist you probably know what "let the frame work" means... And no these workarounds are not usable. We could make a usability test and proof it. --Lefteous 06:24, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)
One more thing - there are some functions in Total Commander which could be removed because there are plugins which do a better job. --Lefteous 06:32, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)
As I wrote on the public forum everything could be done by these scripts - the whole programs. The downside is that the quality of the program really suffers under this frickelware.