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

Vim Creep (2011)

rudism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#32

Post by graderjs »

This is good. It reminded me that "vim" is actually a word: "with vim and vigor." It's an appropriate word. Sort of like a retroactive nominal determinism, because it's "vi-improved", so the Mooleanaar probably didn't name it because vim means energy, but, basically that's what it means for a lot of programmers (including me). All these years, I never recalled the connection between the word and the name of the tool, until reading this story! Great!

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#33

Post by arendtio »

bgribble wrote: post #29

I’m a Vim user and proponent so don’t get me wrong here, but is “creep” in the title intended to be a description of what Vim does, or of the Vim user/protagonist? :)

Another option is 'the way in which vim spreads'

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#34

Post by markus_zhang »

I'll stick to an IDE. Modern IDEs are sophiscated enough that a Vim/Emacs newbie user probably needs years of practice and tons of plugins to match and go over its capabilities. I think Vim makes a lot of sense when 1) the machine doesn't have a proper IDE, and 2) you really do a lot of programming every day and you are young, like in 20s, so you can amortize the cost for longer time.

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#35

Post by seamyb88 »

Vim very much parallels a user's story with linux. Experiment just enough that you catch a glimpse of its true power and you become a snob. Your workflow is amazing and anybody who uses Windows/IDEs is a lesser mortal.

I will say that, while vim has a great, great many advantages, I'm often honest with those I'm trying to convert. Like the article said, there is a learning curve and you probably shouldn't try to gain the efficiency offered at peak work times, for e.g. with a deadline looming. Also, you accidentally hit a letter key and you can do something far less obviously wrong than inserting that letter into your text. But these are like getting a runny nose from a medicine that saves your life.

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#36

Post by arendtio »

lunchladydoris wrote: post #26
jacknews wrote: post #20

Nice story, but :wq ? I've mapped ZZ to :w, ZX to :x, and QQ to ZQ / :q! to quit.

In case anyone else hasn't heard of or used :x > Like “:wq”, but write only when changes have been made. https://til.hashrocket.com/posts/2fdb6afb66-difference-betwe...

Some time ago, I read, that the usage of :x is discouraged, as the typo :X is easy to make and leads to encrypting the file accidentally.

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#37

Post by smichel17 »

_0w8t wrote: post #27
simias wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO if you want an IDE use an IDE. There are a wealth of plugins that attempt more or less successfully to bring IDE-like features to VIM, but I'm not sure I see the point personally, it'll never be as seamless as an IDE built and maintained from the ground up to do these things. I hear that many IDEs have semi-competent Vim-style editing support, so maybe that would be more to your taste. If you want to try the Vim…

Without plugins Visual Studio Code in principle is just an editor. Yet even without any plugins or language-specific support it still a better tool for development out-of-the-box than Vim or Emacs. It can quick open and search across a development tree with thousands of files with no configuration. So as an editor for config files and small projects Vim without plugins is OK. But that basic Vim experience just does n…

> It can quick open and search across a development tree with thousands of files with no configuration.

    git grep

?

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#38

Post by the_gipsy »

dmitriid wrote: post #6

> You recorded macros, you moved entire blocks of code with the flick of a finger, you filled dozens of registers, and you rewrote and refactored entire components without even glancing at your mouse. You mean: spend untold hours scripting and recording interactions that give you about 10% of capabilities of a modern IDE. I've personally seen long-time vim users switch to Idea after looking over my shoulder.

Ah yes, I call it mouse-driven-programming.

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#39

Post by lucb1e »

arendtio wrote: post #36
lunchladydoris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case anyone else hasn't heard of or used :x > Like “:wq”, but write only when changes have been made. https://til.hashrocket.com/posts/2fdb6afb66-difference-betwe...

Some time ago, I read, that the usage of :x is discouraged, as the typo :X is easy to make and leads to encrypting the file accidentally.

TIL vim has encryption.

If you're annoyed by typoing stuff, like I'm annoyed by typing :Wq or :WQ, you can just alias it of course. Since you (and, presumably, nobody) ever use(s) vim encryption it doesn't matter to override it.

vimrc:

    command Wq wq
    command WQ wq
    command W w
    command Q q

Re: Vim Creep (2011)

#40

Post by ragona »

markus_zhang wrote: post #34

I'll stick to an IDE. Modern IDEs are sophiscated enough that a Vim/Emacs newbie user probably needs years of practice and tons of plugins to match and go over its capabilities. I think Vim makes a lot of sense when 1) the machine doesn't have a proper IDE, and 2) you really do a lot of programming every day and you are young, like in 20s, so you can amortize the cost for longer time.

I’m also an IDE fan, but I love vim plugins for text navigation. For editing a bunch of files like text, I’m likely using vim.

But for doing proper application work, refactoring, debugging — I’m with you. I might be good at vim but gdb is a whole different beast.

Post reply on HN