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

151–160 of 372 posts

Re: Neovim

#151

Post by jnbiche »

ben0x539 wrote: post #115
jnbiche wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some way to donate via Bitcoin?

And via EVE Online isk?

Yeah, when it has a 10 Billion USD market cap, is accepted by Fortune 500 companies and leading Internet sites, and is celebrated by successful venture capitalists like Fred Wilson and HN's founder, get back to me.

(And you'll probably retort with the failure of an exchange that almost everyone in the Bitcoin community has been hoping would fail for the past 3 years).

But seriously, I'm pretty sure that you can exchange Eve online currency for Bitcoin, so I'd sure take it as a donation if someone offered.

Re: Neovim

#152

Post by bronson »

tarruda wrote: post #17
bronson wrote: post #4

It sounds like they have no interest in getting this stuff pushed back upstream? There's no mention of it on the home page. At this point it smells kind of Emacs/XEmacsish. Hope they can rally immense development effort.

As the author I would like to contribute changes back, search vim_dev mailing list for 'message loop' and 'job control' and you will find two patches I've sent that werent even commented by Bram. This fork changes so much that its impossible that it will ever be accepted

I TOTALLY hear that.

Maybe an GCC/EGCS, eglibc/glibc, or (as nfm points out) Yarv/MRI scenario could work. First prove your mettle (will take donkey's years), then upstream can jump to your stable code base in one glorious commit.

Hope you can mention in the readme that upstreaming is not a goal... It might be hard to get the wording right but it would have made my first impression quite a bit less skeptical. :)

Re: Neovim

#153

Post by jnbiche »

nousernamesleft wrote: post #149
jnbiche wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do believe everything in C should be rewritten in C's successor which doesn't exist yet Both golang and D have a reasonable claim to being C's successor. People often think of D being a nextgen C++, but to me it has much more the feel of a C with garbage collection and batteries included. And golang definitely feels like a modern C, at least to me. And that's what Rob Pike had in mind, as well. PS: Had to use Word…

Go has absolutely no claim to being C's successor. It is useless for all the things it makes sense to use C for. That's why it has attracted virtually no C programmers. Go is python's successor if user influx is anything to judge by.

That's a fair argument. Neither Golang nor D give you the control that C gives you. If that's your yardstick, then the only viable candidate at this point is Rust. But Rust doesn't feel or look anything like C, but more like C++ or maybe Scala.

Re: Neovim

#154

Post by binarygrizzly »

I applaud your effort but I worry that this step is not far enough to make a better version of vim. However I really think that we can do better and the famous, great editors (vim, emacs, acme, etc.) all have different features that make them great and unique. I prefer vim because of its modal nature which might be the reason why I find it also ergonomically superior (after remapping ESC to jf) - e.g. I don't like it to stretch my fingers.

On the other hand I never really script vim as I find vimscript just terrible. This is far better in emacs as it uses a decent programming language.

The third aspect I think is not well-designed is window/buffer-managment. In my opinion this point could be outsourced or developed in connection with a tiling WM or terminal multiplexer like tmux/screen (this part is best in acme).

A modern approach I thought about (Yet Another Text Editor Syndrome) would be a client-server architecture with a server node storing buffers with context information (filename, cursor, etc.) to which clients can connect. A client node could be on one hand a viewer (terminal or gui based) doing fancy thing like syntax-hightlighting, cursor control, searching and on the other a REPL (in any language) that just has to implement the bridge to a defined message protocol.

Re: Neovim

#155

Post by lucian1900 »

bigtunacan wrote: post #141
rthomas6 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I read over the license and you're right, the license does need to be included. However I don't see anything wrong with the project as long as the license is included in its distribution. The license doesn't go against anything Neovim is doing, provided they include the license and provide the project source.

Therein lies the problem; the license is not being included. I find this a bit concerning since the default in forking a repo would have included it. So this gives off the impression then that the license was deliberately removed. Just to make it clear (most people on Hackernews probably already know this, but for the sake of anyone that doesn’t), it would look like this. hg clone https://vim.googlecode.com/hg/ neovi…

I think it's likely that the license was accidentally removed as part of cleaning up the build system.

Re: Neovim

#156

Post by Perseids »

kcbanner wrote: post #114
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…

If you are comparing Word and Markdown to LaTeX I think it's clear you haven't really used LaTeX.

Can one not value the simplicity of an apple, the juiciness of an orange and compare it to a Pomelo, wishing the latter had both?

I would say LaTeΧ can be perfectly well seen as a combination of many aspects of Word and Markdown in the sense that it offers the feature set and backwards compatibility that Words offers, while culminating a legacy, complexity and perceived indeterminism that also plagues Word (though in a different way); and on the other side being a plain text format that can be version controlled and taken apart and shared as snippets.

Re: Neovim

#157

Post by onli »

gradstudent wrote: post #150
onli wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usable means an interface which is (i) consistent and (ii) well suited to the task at hand. No it doesn't. Usable as in Usability is defined in the ISO-norm 9241-110 by seven principles, a summary can be found here: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/resources/iso9241/part110.html "suitability for the task (the dialogue should be suitable for the user’s task and skill level); self-descriptiveness (the dialogue should make…

> vim falls short in discoverabilty and, arguably, in user expectation, and suitability for learning. vim fits very well all the criteria you just cited. Moreover, "discoverability", "user expectation" and "suitability for learning" appear to be buzzwords that you just threw in on your own at the end.

Nope, they all are part of the ISO. I cited two of them, and the first, discoverability, is a consequence of self-descriptiveness and learnability. Don't know how you get the idea I throw them in as buzzword when they are part of the quote...

Re: Neovim

#158

Post by nicklovescode »

NAFV_P wrote: post #88
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…

> Look at SublimeText, it's got 1% of the features of Vim, yet it's converting Vim users left and right, by its sheer usability. I just looked it up, $70 is way out of my pay range. I'll convert when I have a full-time job. > We as developers in the Open Source community should be ashamed people are still using Vim to write LaTeX in Bash running on terminal emulators. Yes, you should be ashamed.

You can use the free version. It's full featured but has intermittent alerts asking you to upgrade[0].

[0] Recent vim convert.

Re: Neovim

#160

Post by unfamiliar »

kcbanner wrote: post #114
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…

If you are comparing Word and Markdown to LaTeX I think it's clear you haven't really used LaTeX.

Oh get over yourself. Every one of the criticisms he levelled against latex is spot on, and you pick up on the fact that he mentions Word is easier to use (which, by a long, long way, it it).
Post reply on HN