Well has most certainly hit on a lot of very important and valid points. It’s not like the app has to load in all of its features into memory at once ( duh) So what’s wrong with adding more? Especially with features like this which are so small. How much bloat will that add to the app? A few subroutines? Maybe a library dependency? If you’re really concerned about bloat that minute, don’t use OS X as you’ll find many common apps far, far, far too bloated for your taste.Įven on top of that, what’s wrong with people asking for more features from TotalFinder? Isn’t it already aspiring to become like PathFinder, etc.? I mean, again, all these sorts of apps are doing anyway is just adding on a random, nice mish-mash of things to the existing Finder app. On top of that, we’re just talking about a filtering feature for crap’s sake. Which is not to say that’s a bad thing, as the Unix philosophy is not always a good rule to adhere to. It’s not like TotalFinder, PathFinder, or what have you are particularly good at one thing and one thing only. You’re sitting there preaching about the Unix philosophy regarding an app whose sole purpose is really to just extend another app with various, rather unrelated features. Wtf? Sorry pal, but your arguments make no sense on so many levels there. Today it’s search feature, tomorrow it’s file compare, next day it’s folder syncing… My humble opinion. I realize people feel that their one feature request is hardly the ‘kitchen sink’, but my point is, where do you draw the line. I would not want TF to become the new ‘kitchen sink’ finder replacement. As reidrik.von pointed out, there are other apps that SPECIALIZE in searching, and other apps that specialize in FTP, and file compare, and folder synching, and so on. I believe if you polled most TF users they would agree, keep it light, just make sure what it does, it does well and without bugs. I want TF to remain light and fast and focus on the main reason I use it, dual pane side by side display, with a few extras like color sidebar thrown in. If I wanted Forklift or PathFinder, I’d being using it, not TF. TF starts doing this and next thing you know you are headed down the path (pun intended) to being PathFinder want a be, or Forklift. Other people feel strongly that TF should support FTP/webDAV/, folder synching, file compare and cloud access and on and on. Adding that into TF would probably increase its size and complexity many times over. Search features are not simple there is a lot that goes into it behind the scenes. Some developers fall into the trap of wanting to please everyone and begin adding these features, and what was once a small, fast, app that specialized in one thing and did it well, becomes heavier, bloated mess with a mish-mash of features. It seems whenever an app becomes successful at doing one or a few things, people start wanting to add this or that feature, and of course every person feels the feature on their ‘want’ list is the most important. Command Line tools – A terminal right in your file browser that provides a graphical interface to some popular UNIX utilities.Although I understand the usefulness of this, I respectfully disagree that it should be added to TF.File List Sorting & Filtering – Sort by folders first, or limit a list of files by name or extension.Tabs & Bookmarks – Use the best features of a web browser in your file browser. Drop Stack – Freeze drag & drop operations by placing files into a temporary stack.PathFinder works in both Leopard and Snow Leopard. This feature is based on one of the developer’s other projects, Visor, which offers system-wide Terminal access.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |