Tabs and restoring them on startup

[electricmessiah]

Every single text editor on the planet needs this functionality in 2026. Without it, they are simply unusable. The new notepad works great and has all of the features Notepad needs except the AI. I respect the effort here, but there are millions of FOSS notepads out there and most of them are missing the basics mentioned above.

[levicki]

Every single text editor on the planet needs this functionality in 2026.

No it doesn't. You can always open multiple instances.

Without it, they are simply unusable.

Nope.

The new notepad works great and has all of the features Notepad needs except the AI.

Then use it.

I respect the effort here...

No you don't, or you wouldn't be missing a point like this and asking for a feature which is out of scope of a project trying to build a minimal Windows executable.

... , but there are millions of FOSS notepads out there and most of them are missing the basics mentioned above.

Off the top of my head, both Notepad++ and Notepad3 have tabs and can restore them on startup.

TinyRetroPad simply isn't for you.

Repeat after me — not every program of type X has to have all the features (or any specific feature) of other programs of type X.

When every program just copies everything else other programs of the same type do, you get the opposite of innovation and choice.

[electricmessiah]

When every program just copies everything else other programs of the same type do, you get the opposite of innovation and choice.

Relax, you're getting a bit defensive. I see this version of notepad for what it is: a fun, impressive coding challenge. That's cool. But adding basic QOL improvements like tabs and persistence within a tight, low-level architecture is part of the challenge. This actually prevents it from being a one-off novelty that people just load, admire, and delete. The entire point of an open-source baseline is to fork it and extend it. If you want a static, frozen text box, enjoy your multiple instances. Also.. 2003 wants your website theme back.

[NaoPb]

Also.. 2003 wants your website theme back.

I was agreeing with you until this part. There's no need to get personal just because you're disagreeing here.

Also, I think it's a bit ironic that you mention this on a project that's about getting a program with the smallest filesize possible and where looks are less relevant.
His webpage seems very barebones and lightweight, aside from the images. I imagine it's very low in size and loads quite fast on any computer or connection. Which is something that can't be said for a lot of webpages these days.

[levicki]

But adding basic QOL improvements like tabs and persistence within a tight, low-level architecture is part of the challenge.

Nobody is preventing you from forking it and challenging yourself then?

Also.. 2003 wants your website theme back.

I'll take that as a compliment, stay in 2003, and laugh while you wait for your browser to load and render GMail's 3MB of inline CSS while using 713 MB just for that one tab.

[electricmessiah]

Also.. 2003 wants your website theme back.

I'll take that as a compliment, stay in 2003, and laugh while you wait for your browser to load and render GMail's 3MB of inline CSS while using 713 MB just for that one tab.

Listen up Mr. Strawman, nobody reads your webpage anyway (which is ~73% as bloated as the Gmail CSS you reference), so it might as well be 50k lines of uncompressed CSS!

Which is something that can't be said for a lot of webpages these days.

Maybe a valid argument on 2003 hardware, but it's 2026 folks and we've got hardware and browsers with decades of optimizations on top of caching and CDN. I'm all for writing clean, fast code and keeping things minimal, but with today's hardware, on any OS, show me a website that's going to make me get a coffee before a meaningful paint occurs that is caused by the site itself and not latency somewhere on the wire.

Anyway, thanks for the laughs!

[levicki]

Listen up Mr. Strawman...

Says a guy writing this strawman:

nobody reads your webpage anyway (which is ~73% as bloated as the Gmail CSS you reference), so it might as well be 50k lines of uncompressed CSS!

Apparently you read it, or you wouldn't be talking about it so much. Show us on the MDN doll where has my sleek, evil, HTML touched you?

but it's 2026 folks and we've got hardware and browsers with decades of optimizations on top of caching and CDN.

All undone with the invention of Javascript.

Joking aside, not everyone on the planet can afford latest hardware (especially now and given the trends in component pricing in the future maybe even you won't be able to). And also why would they need an i9 14900K screaming at 6 GHz to read a website? Unoptimized stuff is a giant waste of energy, multiplied by number of users/visitors it adds up rather fast.

I'm all for writing clean, fast code and keeping things minimal

Is that only in theory? Because your request here was the total opposite and so was your criticism of my minimalist (but very functional and SEO friendly) personal website.

with today's hardware, on any OS, show me a website...

https://calibreapp.com/tools/website-speed-leaderboard

Pick any category.

Anyway, thanks for the laughs!

No, thank you.