Oh, the Joys of youth! My previous computer to this one was a whopping 2Gb. My computer before then had a massive 80Mb drive. I always did like to overestimate what I needed.
You failed to say how big your current hard drive is. Who cares if the pc before your previous one had only 80 mb? Our old home computer had 20 mb, but who cares, windows wasn't even out yet, so we sure as hell weren't running mIRC, so really, what's your point?
Or are you one of these people who goes to buffets/smorgasbords and just piles your plate up even though you are not going to eat it all?
When people start with personal insults, it ususally means they are out of arguments. This turned out to be the case:
The point is: bloat is bloat. Why puff something up with code that is outside the original concept - a <text> IRC client?
This really made me "lol". Code outside the original concept of a <text> IRC client? Maybe you forgot that mIRC has a scripting language, that can do things that have nothing to do with IRC. How do you rhyme that? Should we remove the scripting language as well, because it can and is used a lot for a lot non-IRC related things. I once made a snippet to eject a cd rom drive, this has nothing to do with IRC, so I suppose we should have never allowed COM support to be added. Oh, btw, you know mIRC can play audio files right? What does that have to do with IRC? mIRC has a /run command which lets you run an external app. It has support for picture windows... What does that have to do with IRC? People use sockets to connect to a website and retrieve data. Oh yeah that sounds very IRC related! Quick, someone, tell Khaled to remove all these features, because Darwin Koala says they are not within the original concept of a <text> IRC client. [/sarcasm]
Oh the horror, 2 mb space taken again! If the option of smilies is disabled (did you read it?
disabled) then your mIRC is not going to be any (yes
any) slower, since it's
disabled. Gotta love those on/off switches.
- to be properly implemented, "special strings" will have to be sent across IRC. If anything addition than >:-{ is needed, then regular users will soon get very annoyed!
What on earth are you talking about special strings? I don't know if you are aware of it, but smilies are already widely used for years on IRC with all their different textual representations. I don't think we need new strings to represent the smilies we've been using for years. No extra strings are required, no extra load on the IRC server, since it would just be translation of : ) : D : P :] :[
:\ etc etc.
- mIRC should continue to look different than IM clients, otherwise it might be confused as an IM client as well as a file trading client
What? Who is to say what mIRC should continue to look like? So what if an IM client supports smilies. Smilies have become a big part of your every day textual communication, you could consider it as a little language where different signs have a different meaning. When you use a smiley, you communicate something, that sounds IRC related, don't you think? Especially since it's already like that for soo many years.
I often put one smiley at the end of the sentence, to denote how the sentence should be interpreted. After all, in text based communication it is harder to know how you should interpret a sentence, whereas in oral communication, the intonation and tone of the person saying something, gives a lot of "meta" information about the text. Smilies are my meta-information when I chat, whether that be on IRC, MSN, or when sending an sms to a friend with my cell phone.
- The extra code is bound to be the subject of numerous "bug" complaints. That is if it doesn't break something in the process.
I don't know if you have ever went through the
versions.txt, but you'll see that every release is full of bugfixes with a couple of new features introduced. Some versions are even nothing but bugfixes. *G* introducing smiley support in mIRC might cause bug complaints? What else is new?
IRC [l]users will start sending smileys all the time just to get graphical pleasure. So much for "Chat".
Uh, I'm confused here, aren't people already using smilies? The difference now is that they'd see it as actual smilies, while you continue to see their textual representation. Oh but you're saying they will use more smilies as before? I can imagine that with a few people, but I also realise it doesn't take long to /ignore someone, and if you're an op /ban someone for excessive use of smilies. If you want I'll give you a small code to detect excessive repeating of smilies, so that it'll be very easy to catch
So much for chat? Well the fact that mIRC is being widely used for file serving must surely tick you off, you ought to start a petition to remove DCC from mIRC so that it can't be abused for mass file trading. Oh wait, but didn't Khaled say that sending files is part of communication like pictures of friends etc. and that he doesn't like that it is abused, but that it's no reason to remove DCC support from mIRC. Hmm I smell a parallel logic, do you?
Not only will the graphical support be needed in the chat window (that is, mixing graphics with text) but who is going to design the smiley's?
Huh? What kind of argument is that? Of course it's mixed with text, where else would the smilies be visible? You are worried about who is going to design the smilies?
Will this require multi-text support?
Multi-text support?
Finally, if such visually stimuli is needed, then perhaps you can code it. The loading of these scripts is then optional! This solves the best of both worlds - the regular users don't get the bloat and you (and anyone else who wants it) get the smileys!
Uh, everyone in this thread agrees that it should be optional, so what's your point? What is this bloat you keep referring to if it is disabled. Think of it as a script, you've made a huge bloated script, which is captured in between #groups. Well you disable the #group, and guess what? mIRC ignores the code between the #groups, cool huh?
