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

Why I Still Use Vim

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#111

Post by mugsie »

_pmf_ wrote: post #84
mugsie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that sublime does all of that, supports plugins written in python, and doesn't screen tear, and leaves me some RAM for other things

I wanted to agree with you and write a snide remark about Atom, but then I checked RAM usage of an empty Sublime Text 3 instance on 64 bit Linux, and it was at about 136 MB, so there's that.

Sure - there will always be an overhead for window compositing, etc.

But the point of the article is the bloat as you open larger files, which gets much larger when you use a DOM to do syntax highlighting.

I have (and unfortunately still have to from time to time) open massive log files - in sublime / vi / nano they open fine (even with syntax highlighting), but even on my workstation Atom and Code fall over.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#112

Post by hasenj »

IntelliJ is just as heavy. Android studio is even heavier.

If Sublime had features on par with Code I would happily use it.

Though honestly I don't know much about Sublime. Can anyone comment on how it compares to Code?

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#114

Post by christogreeff »

I was intrigued by this article. So I tested it myself using VSCode 1.15.1 (x64), and a 6.16 MB (6 462 222 bytes) XML file. File opened in < 4 seconds. Uses about 180MB of memory. All 16013 lines show. Scrolling isn't an issue. Code folding isn't an issue. Memory usage dropped to 160MB, and then jumped to 330MB. Still high, but for me it works well and not a scenario I'd typically encounter.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#115

Post by BenGosub »

I like and use Atom, I started using it because I wanted a change from Sublime (not that there's anything wrong with Sublime). I have noticed though that it uses much more resources than Sublime so it drains my lap top battery faster and sometimes it feels slow.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#116

Post by kronos29296 »

tombh wrote: post #107
kronos29296 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use nano if you don't want its shortcuts or even emacs. You don't have to use any predefined shortcuts in emacs. Everything is reconfigurable. The main selling point of vim is its shortcuts and modal editing. If it is not for you there dozens of great text editors that do a good job of just editing text compared to Atom.

How do I get autocompletion, linting, gitgutter, and so on in Nano? Emacs is another great editor for sure, but slightly heavier weight than Vim, so I've just invested in that. There is no other editor that even comes close to being as lightweight and extensible as Vim (or Emacs). Whatsmore I absolutely love my editor being in a tmux pane. This is an unprecedented paradigm, that people should't have to miss out on ju…

If you put it like that you only have emacs left. Instead of an editor in a tmux pane you a shell in the editor. But Emacs is hardly lightweight. Compared to Atom though even something as heavy Spacemacs in emacs is much better.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#117

Post by stouset »

kuschku wrote: post #55
Klathmon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with atom basically being a web browser, it is trivial for them to do it. Which was the point of them making it in a web browser. Leverage that as a platform to make extensions/plugins easier to write and maintain and allow them to do more. Atom is a more capable "IDE" than any other IDE i've ever used, and it's easier to create and manage plugins for. Yeah, there are still some rough edges and things that I hate ab…

> Atom is a more capable "IDE" than any other IDE i've ever used That says more about you than it does about atom. You should check out the IDEA line of IDEs sometimes.

I can literally hear when my coworkers have IntelliJ open. People are here griping about Atom's memory use, but using 1GB of memory is an order of magnitude better than obliterating my battery by pegging my CPUs. No thanks.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#118

Post by ckastner »

Klathmon wrote: post #6

These kinds of comparisons always seemed a bit silly to me. It's like complaining that opening a 6MB file in windows took over 3GB on my system! (ignoring that most of that is the OS getting ready to do other things, and enabling the OS to do things other than opening and reading a 6MB file). Yes, Atom isn't the most resource friendly editor out there, and nobody is claiming it is. But it is one of the more capable e…

> It's like complaining that opening a 6MB file in windows took over 3GB on my system

No, it's like complaining that opening a 6MB file in Windows took the resource usage from 3 GB to 3.6GB (in absolute terms), or from 3GB to ~10GB (in relative terms).

> Not to mention that a 6MB file is pretty fucking big for something like atom. Yes, I know, 6MB isn't "big", but for an editor which is designed to only work on source files which are AT MOST a MB, it's big.

Where is this design decision documented? What was the reasoning behind it?

I looked at the docs, and couldn't anything supporting this statement, which sounds ludicrous to me. It's 2017, an editor shouldn't choke on 6MB no matter what you feed it.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#119

Post by amelius »

Klathmon wrote: post #6

These kinds of comparisons always seemed a bit silly to me. It's like complaining that opening a 6MB file in windows took over 3GB on my system! (ignoring that most of that is the OS getting ready to do other things, and enabling the OS to do things other than opening and reading a 6MB file). Yes, Atom isn't the most resource friendly editor out there, and nobody is claiming it is. But it is one of the more capable e…

I'd like to see some numbers on how memory usage relates to file size. E.g. memory usage for a 1k file, 10k, 100k, 1M, 10M, 100M, 1G.

Re: Why I Still Use Vim

#120

Post by vbezhenar »

pleasecalllater wrote: post #47
Klathmon wrote: post #6

These kinds of comparisons always seemed a bit silly to me. It's like complaining that opening a 6MB file in windows took over 3GB on my system! (ignoring that most of that is the OS getting ready to do other things, and enabling the OS to do things other than opening and reading a 6MB file). Yes, Atom isn't the most resource friendly editor out there, and nobody is claiming it is. But it is one of the more capable e…

This is ridiculous. I just should not complain that some program is useless and terribly resource hungry? What will be next? "Stop complaining that the browser uses 10GB of ram to show a page, as it is bigger than standard page"? This is just ridiculous. For showing the html I just use multiple browsers. My page must look good in multiple browsers, not in my editor. For the whole environment I just consoles with full…

A lot of people have similar complaints about Idea. So your complaint is only different because Atom happens to eat a bit more memory. Do you know that Emacs means "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping"? See, it's wasn't different 30 years ago. One can easily build a workstation with 128 GB memory if he's making money with it, it's not very expensive, so 1 GB of RAM would be less than 1%. I don't see much issues, honestly.

Of course it's nice when programs are fast and not hungry. Reality is that developers happily trade performance for power of abstractions.

Post reply on HN