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

Neovim

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 372 posts

Re: Neovim

#31

Post by fournm »

tinco wrote: post #29

Thanks for trying to do what many of us secretly wished we could do but can't because of time/skill constraints. I will definitely move to NeoVim the second it's packaged (is it yet?), regardless if you've changed anything yet. I hate the ideas many programmers have about backwards compatibility, that it's more important than development speed and modern concepts. There is nothing holy about Unix era software, chance…

I agree with almost everything--except for backwards compatibility when it comes to throwing stuff out. There is definite value in it, especially when we're talking about something as old and widely used as vim!

The thing about compatibility is that it doesn't matter how great your new and shiny is if it can't talk to old things at all. Imagine the best new text editor in the world, but it's completely incompatible with every file format that's ever been written previously, even .txt! No one would use it, because the cost of switching is too high.

In some cases, it's definitely worthwhile to have some development pain to keep that around. Stuff like keeping vimscript (and therefore the entire ecosystem around vim) functioning means that neovim could be a drop-in for some people, and HAS to be preserved at least partially. Stuff like keeping ancient Amiga support or integration with Sun workshop? Definitely not worth it anymore.

Re: Neovim

#32

Post by agscala »

tambourine_man wrote: post #15
krick wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I've been thinking on it for quite a long time already, newer shinier Vim is something I secretly wish for. On the other hand I found it quite problematic. The main problem of Vim is Vimscript. So "newer shinier Vim" is Vim with real programming language instead of vimscript. But it's impossible to remove Vimscript: it won't be Vim anymore. It affects not only scrip…

Neo Vi Improved. We suck at naming things :) Yeah, I have mixed feelings as well. I love my Vim, don't touch it. And yet, vimscript does suck and better separation from core and UI could allow for very interesting things. Also, no one really cares about Vi compatibility anymore and cleaning the scary old C code base could make it much more accessible. I guess we'll see.

I think it should be called Vimim, Vi Improved Improved

Re: Neovim

#33

Post by bayesianhorse »

I actually had hoped "Neovim" would be a modern reimagining of a modal Texteditor for the modern time, along one of two paths.

Path 1: An html5+javascript based modal editor where buffers are actually DOM trees, enabling both code and other data to be rendered/edited, and also offering much richer visual enhancements. Javascript is already a great way for enabling a rich plugin ecosystem.

Path 2: Modal Textediting suited for mobile devices. For example based on python+kivy, or even C with SDL, it would be aimed to be portable and to extend the modal interface to touch-based gestures and speech recognition. Akin to "verbal vim", entering vim-like commands with touch or voice gestures, text editing on mobile devices like tablets would immediately suck a lot less...

Re: Neovim

#34

Post by wonderzombie »

krick wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I've been thinking on it for quite a long time already, newer shinier Vim is something I secretly wish for. On the other hand I found it quite problematic. The main problem of Vim is Vimscript. So "newer shinier Vim" is Vim with real programming language instead of vimscript. But it's impossible to remove Vimscript: it won't be Vim anymore. It affects not only scrip…

Of all the reasons to keep Vim, Vimscript is the one I'd least expect to see on a list! The obtuse nature of Vimscript and clunky Ruby/Python interop are, IMHO, a huge wart on an otherwise fantastic editor.

Re: Neovim

#35

Post by tinco »

fournm wrote: post #31
tinco wrote: post #29

Thanks for trying to do what many of us secretly wished we could do but can't because of time/skill constraints. I will definitely move to NeoVim the second it's packaged (is it yet?), regardless if you've changed anything yet. I hate the ideas many programmers have about backwards compatibility, that it's more important than development speed and modern concepts. There is nothing holy about Unix era software, chance…

I agree with almost everything--except for backwards compatibility when it comes to throwing stuff out. There is definite value in it, especially when we're talking about something as old and widely used as vim! The thing about compatibility is that it doesn't matter how great your new and shiny is if it can't talk to old things at all. Imagine the best new text editor in the world, but it's completely incompatible w…

    I agree with almost everything--except for backwards compatibility when it comes to throwing stuff out. There is definite value in it, especially when we're talking about something as old and widely used as vim!
This is the part where people are surprised, but I am an extremist. I definitely think backwards compatibility should be among the lowest priorities when making decisions on improving software, especially and perhaps just, in Open Source.

Just think about it. What happens when we decide a certain core feature of Vim is archaeic, and could be implemented in a more modern, more flexible, more loosely coupled way.

First, every vim plugin would break. But if you look at how many Vim plugins are actually used, I would be surprised if the top 100 Vim plugins covered less than 99.99% of all Vim users. That means we only have to upgrade 100 Vim plugins, and probably just a couple of lines if they're written well.

How much technical debt have we accrued now, that in reality could be paid off just by biting the bullet and going through a hundred pieces of software and changing a couple of lines?

This is open source, we could just do it. (tm)

Re: Neovim

#36

Post by grannyg00se »

tinco wrote: post #29

Thanks for trying to do what many of us secretly wished we could do but can't because of time/skill constraints. I will definitely move to NeoVim the second it's packaged (is it yet?), regardless if you've changed anything yet. I hate the ideas many programmers have about backwards compatibility, that it's more important than development speed and modern concepts. There is nothing holy about Unix era software, chance…

So Sublime text provides a 99% feature loss but a great usability gain?

Can you explain that a bit?

Re: Neovim

#37

Post by fiatjaf »

agscala wrote: post #32
tambourine_man wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neo Vi Improved. We suck at naming things :) Yeah, I have mixed feelings as well. I love my Vim, don't touch it. And yet, vimscript does suck and better separation from core and UI could allow for very interesting things. Also, no one really cares about Vi compatibility anymore and cleaning the scary old C code base could make it much more accessible. I guess we'll see.

I think it should be called Vimim, Vi Improved Improved

It really should.

Re: Neovim

#38

Post by cicero »

tinco wrote: post #29

Thanks for trying to do what many of us secretly wished we could do but can't because of time/skill constraints. I will definitely move to NeoVim the second it's packaged (is it yet?), regardless if you've changed anything yet. I hate the ideas many programmers have about backwards compatibility, that it's more important than development speed and modern concepts. There is nothing holy about Unix era software, chance…

I don't see anything shameful about using old software if it works well and suits your needs. Yes, new editors like SublimeText have advantages, and if you prefer them over Vim, use them. However, I've seen many projects undergo a rewrite in order to move to new technology, but they never matched the utility of the old technology they were trying to replace. I'm not saying it can't happen, but that it often doesn't.

I don't use Vim much now because I work a lot in Windows, and Vim got me into the habit of hitting escape when I was through entering text, but escape cancels the input in a lot of programs. However, I still use it in the shell or when I need to make certain global edits.

I wish Neovim great success, and I might use it someday if it meets my needs, but not just because it's new technology.

Re: Neovim

#39

Post by swah »

swdunlop wrote: post #6
krick wrote: post #3

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I've been thinking on it for quite a long time already, newer shinier Vim is something I secretly wish for. On the other hand I found it quite problematic. The main problem of Vim is Vimscript. So "newer shinier Vim" is Vim with real programming language instead of vimscript. But it's impossible to remove Vimscript: it won't be Vim anymore. It affects not only scrip…

"Hm, maybe better to write an open-source version of Sublime Text?" You mean, like Lime? https://github.com/limetext/lime

Nice, but I would have to know a little more about their philosophy before deciding I'm interested in the project. Their frontpage shows something as closed as Sublime's. "This is what we're doing with this tech, its gonna be great".

Re: Neovim

#40

Post by glesica »

tinco wrote: post #29

Thanks for trying to do what many of us secretly wished we could do but can't because of time/skill constraints. I will definitely move to NeoVim the second it's packaged (is it yet?), regardless if you've changed anything yet. I hate the ideas many programmers have about backwards compatibility, that it's more important than development speed and modern concepts. There is nothing holy about Unix era software, chance…

  > ...should be ashamed people are still using Vim to write LaTeX in Bash running on terminal emulators.
First, why? It works just fine. Second, is there anything better? I don't know of anything I would prefer to use. So until someone comes up with something, I'll stick to using Vim to write LaTeX in a Bash shell (might upgrade to zsh, we'll see).
Post reply on HN