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

51–60 of 372 posts

Re: Neovim

#51

Post by xutopia »

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…

I think a modular base would mean that VimScript could be entirely replaced with a different kind of scripting language. I for one would love to see Ruby or Python take that spot!

Re: Neovim

#52

Post by roel_v »

tinco wrote: post #35
fournm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a user of software - fuck you, and may you never touch anything I use. It's juvenile oo-look-shiny nonsense like this that makes us people who just want to get shit done waste yet another afternoon on patching working stuff after a (forced) update because some wet behind the ears dude decided that everybody before him was a utter moron.

There is a reason people pay for software that just works, and will work for the next few years. It's because they're fed up with being the guinea pigs for architecture astronauts and code purity fetishists.

Also, "that means we only have to upgrade..."

Who is "we" here? You? Of course not, you're too busy chasing the next fad, while the rest of us have to repare shit just to make it do again what it aready did before.

Re: Neovim

#53

Post by [deleted] »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #33

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 su…

[deleted]

Re: Neovim

#54

Post by robinhoodexe »

tinco wrote: post #47
glesica wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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).

No, it doesn't work fine. LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result, it has no API, is not extendable in a sane way, it's source code is so arcane there's books written about it, and if you've read the books the only thing you've learned is that trying to reimplement LateX is a fool's errand. And it's syntax is ugly. Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better. They just…

"Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better." Stop comparing oranges to apples. And there's really no "objectively better", it's two different tools with two different uses. Sure, LaTeX could be better, but it's been working on.

Re: Neovim

#55

Post by standardfoil »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #33

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 su…

Can't tell if you are actually serious about the above or not, especially path 1.

Re: Neovim

#56

Post by tinco »

riffraff wrote: post #41
tinco wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is you broke compatibility now. Will you do it again next year, and fix 100 plugins once more? I am also not a big fun of extreme forms of compatibility, but plenty of projects try to break it only to have people which stick around with old versions for years.

Big projects like Python only break compatibility once every few years, and a lot of thought goes into it. I think it's a lack of respect to the authors of Python and perhaps a lack of authority of Guido that packages are not being upgraded to Python 3.

I wonder what would happen, if just a few companies that actively use Python, like Google, would hire a few devs that for a year would only fork and fix Python 2 projects. Wouldn't it just solve the problem? I bet they'd be done within a couple of months too, and they wouldn't even have to be super senior types.

Re: Neovim

#57

Post by jdc2172 »

if this ever gets off the ground there should be a complete spec sheet for the plugin commands so anyone can write their own vim core that interfaces with other guis and plugins designed for the original vim

Re: Neovim

#58

Post by jdc2172 »

the improvements to the plguin system sound awesome - hopefully it remove the need to do virtually anything in vimscript...

Re: Neovim

#59

Post by tinco »

robinhoodexe wrote: post #54
tinco wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't work fine. LateX is slow, inconsistent and needs to be ran multiple times to give a correct result, it has no API, is not extendable in a sane way, it's source code is so arcane there's books written about it, and if you've read the books the only thing you've learned is that trying to reimplement LateX is a fool's errand. And it's syntax is ugly. Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better. They just…

"Markdown is better. Microsoft Word is better." Stop comparing oranges to apples. And there's really no "objectively better", it's two different tools with two different uses. Sure, LaTeX could be better, but it's been working on.

I do what I want. Also, LaTeX is a system for creating documents, and Word is a system for creating documents. There's only four important differences: Word has a more modern architecture, Words compiler is integrated into its GUI, Word is closed source, Words source format is not human readable.

Apples to Oranges? I can compare these Braeburns to those Fujis just fine thank you.

Re: Neovim

#60

Post by jmehman »

I really like what he's setting out to do here but I was a bit put off by the fundraising setup. If the target isn't met the donations still go to him, and there's no pledge to do anything on that case. Is that right or did I miss something?
Post reply on HN