Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

spacevim.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#111

Post by scrollaway »

bigbugbag wrote: post #66
scrollaway wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not invalidate what I said.

It absolutely does. You trust the distro maintainer and have a security mechanism to ensure the scripts and binaries have not been tampered with. So virtually no risk of MitM and very little risk of malicious scripts and binaries. Reading script and decompiling binaries does not imply you understand every thing they do, but it does imply that you have an unlimited amount of time which is impractical at best.

No, it really doesn't. I was not comparing to distro packages (which are an excellent solution to the problem, like I said elsewhere) but to download links.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#112

Post by scrollaway »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #90
scrollaway wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

curl sh is no more dangerous than running any script you haven't read, or binary you haven't decompiled for that matter. The odds of mitm are exactly the same.

No. https://jordaneldredge.com/blog/one-way-curl-pipe-sh-install...

A two-letter word is not a good rebuttal to a point I addressed in one of the replies you did not bother reading.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#113

Post by scrollaway »

chrismorgan wrote: post #101
scrollaway wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like whatever Github pages is using as renderer (kramdown iirc?) does not support postfix links like [dein.vim] here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SpaceVim/SpaceVim/dev/READ... The table rendering issues I suspect are from the lack of a newline after the headers. I don't know whether it's correct or not because, yknow, markdown. Still better than rst. :)

reStructuredText is at least consistent. And extensible. And secure. It has a decent spec, as well. It’s just a pity that it never gained widespread acceptance or other implementations and is thus effectively tied to Python. I like reStructuredText and work in it regularly. I’m sad that Markdown with all its terrible inconsistency, lack of extensibility, insecurity, &c. has prevailed.

The reasons why Markdown is popular are I think very similar to why HTML is popular. In its first years, it was loosely specced, very liberal in what it accepted and was parsed differently by different implementations (browsers).

When this actually became a real problem, HTML5 came out to spec it much more rigorously.

RST in that picture is XHTML. Rigorous spec, but very picky with the input. Typo? Your whole document won't render.

I've been bitten by XHTML and I've been bitten by RST. The experiences are very similar. I agree with the need for a more rigorous spec but like with HTML it still needs to be liberal with its input.

So that's what we need, and I just hope it doesn't take years to come into existence. An HTML5 for markdown. And we shall call it MD5!

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#114

Post by tom_mellior »

gravypod wrote: post #93

All these "distrobutions" are going to do is further fragment the already extremely confusing terminal-text-editor world. There are so many configurations that it's never going to make sense to me. If it was simple, there'd be an answer to this question: how do I setup Vim/Emacs as a fully feature complete IDE for C, C++, Rust, Go, Java, JavaScript (Node or Web), C#? By feature complete I mean autocomplete, error det…

> If it was simple, there'd be an answer to this question: how do I setup Vim/Emacs as a fully feature complete IDE for C, C++, Rust, Go, Java, JavaScript (Node or Web), C#?

That's the promise of Spacemacs:

- clone their git repository into your .emacs.d directory

- run emacs once, answer three basic questions about your preferences

- add your list of languages to the "dotspacemacs-configuration-layers" list in your .spacemacs

  - I even looked up the syntax for you: "c-c++ rust go java javascript csharp"
- make it reload the config

You're done. All this should take less time than it took me to look up those "layer" names in the docs.

> By feature complete I mean autocomplete, error detection, built in one-button-runs, automatic config/sane defaults.

Yes, all that is the promise of Spacemacs.

If anything, I found it to be too much of a kitchen sink (it tries too hard to be "smart" about balancing parentheses for me etc.). Still, you might want to give it a whirl if you have 15 minutes. I ended up going back to vim for almost everything, and I'm on the line on whether to use Proof General from plain Emacs or from Spacemacs. But the time to check it out is not wasted.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#115

Post by sevensor »

gravypod wrote: post #93

All these "distrobutions" are going to do is further fragment the already extremely confusing terminal-text-editor world. There are so many configurations that it's never going to make sense to me. If it was simple, there'd be an answer to this question: how do I setup Vim/Emacs as a fully feature complete IDE for C, C++, Rust, Go, Java, JavaScript (Node or Web), C#? By feature complete I mean autocomplete, error det…

Personally I'm thrilled by the fragmentation in this space -- I've been using Vim since 4.x, and vi before that. I've never found the plugins particularly enticing; every time I try using things that are outside the core distribution, they end up taking more time to maintain than they're worth. Since I mainly stick with the core distribution, Vim has felt pretty stagnant since it got code folding and syntax highlighting, more than 15 years ago. I've been trying alternatives -- spacemacs feels bloated, neovim is still carrying a lot of baggage (e.g. support for vimscript). So far Kakoune is the one I'm most excited about, to the point where I am right now updating my neglected Cygwin installation so I can try to build it for Windows. (Kakoune needs unix-style select, so native Windows builds are unlikely.)

> By feature complete I mean autocomplete, error detection, built in one-button-runs, automatic config/sane defaults.

By and large, I find features like these distracting to the point of unusability, which is why I like living in stripped-down editor land. Different strokes for different folks.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#116

Post by brudgers »

caconym_ wrote: post #10

I started using Spacemacs recently for its out-of-the-box IDE-like features but the layers' functionality seems to be fairly hit-or-miss and overall the impression is one of a bug-infested nightmare. Every time I try to set up my environment on a new machine, I get some new set of problems that I have no idea how to solve (disappearing powerline, broken neotree, weird projectile caching behavior totally breaking my w…

That's a general problem with many 'frameworks'. When something goes off the happy path, the abstraction is gone and the user is dealing with the underlying abstractions. Elisp for Spacemacs; JavaScript for the hotness of the month, and X11 for Ubuntu.

I don't think it's really possible to build something like Spacemacs for Vim because of the different underlying architectural decisions. Vim is a one-thing-only-and-do-it-well tool. Emacs is 'an operating system missing a decent text edtior'.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#117

Post by Unman »

scrollaway wrote: post #49
dijit wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you believe shell scripts are hard enough to write that systemd can take over. Then you should also believe that they're hard enough to inspect that you want some level of auditing. RPM's are inspectable, signed by default and integrate better with your system. (the same is true of apt). And if they're in the package repository then there is a maintainer who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the quality of th…

For the second time here, I'm not dissing package managers... I even explicitly said the solution is "vetting a package with a high-entry-bar distribution". But the whole point of high-entry-bar distros is that it's highly curated. Some random script from the web will not be in there. How do you serve those that need to casually distribute trivial software? There's some answers to that question - they're not widespre…

Are you claiming that macOS has better vetting of its packages than Linux? And what do you mean by "Linux" anyway? -- lumping RHEL in with ADistroIMadeInMyGarage is a bit odd.

Re: SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim

#119

Post by zeveb »

kelnos wrote: post #51
xkxx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 types of "any script you haven't read, or binary you haven't decompiled": 1. scripts and binaries you obtained from somebody you trust in a safe authenticated way; 2. everything else. When I update my Debian distro, I get binaries via HTTP, that's true. But I also have the public keys of my distro's maintainers whom I trust. The authenticity of every binary I download is automatically checked using those…

Do you never install any software outside Debian's main apt repos? Never add a 3rd-party apt repo for anything that maybe you didn't trust as much? Never clone a git/hg/svn/etc. repo from somewhere and build & install the software yourself? Ok, let's say you don't do any of that. The Debian developers are still fallible, and they certainly don't audit the source code of everything they package. Sure, you have to trus…

> Do you never install any software outside Debian's main apt repos?

Only the official repos, yes, because anything else would be insecure.

> Never add a 3rd-party apt repo for anything that maybe you didn't trust as much?

Heck no, never, ever. Not even once. That's insanely foolish. Frankly, I view, 'please add my PPA/repo to install' as a different way of saying, 'I don't know enough about security for the software I write to be installed on your computer.'

> Never clone a git/hg/svn/etc. repo from somewhere and build & install the software yourself?

I view that as somewhat different, given that the source is there and has a weakly-cryptographically-secure history (weak because it's SHA1), so that if someone ever did something bad then it'd be easy to prove it.

Post reply on HN