1) You gave Windows-specific advice. In particular, you said "Also, use notepad++ if you do not already." One sentence. No explanation as to WHY you recommended that.
2) Somebody pointed out that it was Windows-specific
3) You COULD have said "oh, right. Well, if you are not using Windows, then you can't use that program. I recommended it because <reasons>. Look for a program on your platform which does that!"
4) Instead, you doubled down, and said that even if someone didn't use Windows normally, most people could. Still no explanation about your one-line suggestion (command?).
5) Which expressed the attitude of, well, duh - why wouldn't someone just use Windows and use the program I told them to use?
So, you gave a one-liner suggestion and didn't say word one about WHY you made that suggestion. Even when your assumption was challenged, your response didn't elaborate; it was a defensive reaction to justify your assumption.
And now, when you respond a second time, you start out with another defensive reaction of your assumption! Unbelievable.
This time, however, you actually did include some explanation of why you like Notepad++.
A simple comment saying "Oh, if you don't use Windows, you should instead try XXX instead of Notepad++." would have sufficed and been more useful to him.
Do you really not understand how this is an inappropriate response to your one-line "suggestion", considering that you never explained why you made it? Here is a non-machine-specific way to say what you SHOULD have said:
"Make sure you use an editor which does not insert formatting into the text, like Word does. You want something which manipulates plain text. Every OS comes with such an editor - Notepad, Textedit, what have you - although many people like fancier editors with syntax highlighting and such."
Sheesh. Your first note did not offend me. Your second one, with its assumption that since "most people" have "access to a Windows computer", obviously they'd want to go seek one out in order to edit scripts, rather than using their usual computer, did. Your third note - aside from the continued defensive doubling down (or would it be tripling down?) - actually contained some useful information about WHY you'd made your initial suggestion/command.
As a data point for you, I've been using Unix variants for, probably, longer than you've been alive, bought a Mac II when it came out and have owned Macs ever since, and, aside from one summer of Java contracting, have never in my life used Windows professionally or personally. I work out of my house. There are no Windows computers here. I suppose I could install Windows on Parallels - but why in the world would I want to do that? It would not help me in any way, either professionally or personally.
And for the record, I use Emacs - but unless halle already knows it, I do NOT suggest that she use that editor.
