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

Vim 9.0

vim.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 272 posts

Re: Vim 9.0

#141

Post by calvinmorrison »

xvilka wrote: post #87
tomtomtom777 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I am currently tip-toeing on NeoVim, I still feel this is a horrible break-up. Yes, Open Source simply allows you to branch whenever you're unhappy with the original but this comes at a cost for the community. The cost of having two diverging programs to deal with. In this case, the motivation was simply insufficient. Some people wanted vimscript+lua instead of vimscript. They felt the code was too difficult…

> Isn't a split only justified in situation like OpenOffice/LibreOffice when there is no other choice? I think, the situations are incomparable. OpenOffice is effectively dead and should admit that, it's abandonware unlike Vim which is actively developed. Let all flowers blossom. Just remove dead ones from the garden. It's infuriating that OO insists they do something while they don't, best they can do now is to just…

lest us not forget the years of good hardwork of the openoffice patchset, i think it was called Go-OO that was basically a bunch of package maintainers trying to keep OO running. That became the eventual basis for LO.

Re: Vim 9.0

#142

Post by Seb-C »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #4

I'm curious: - How deep a rabbit hole do most people go down when setting up their vim / neovim environment? Apart from setting up a preferred color and language specific tab spacing and highlighting, I don't need more, but I've seen some pretty fancy setups. Out of the different plugins, which would you never operate without?

I have got a stable setup and been happy with for many years now.

I would say that the plugins I could not do without are:

- vim-polyglot

- syntastic

- nerdtree

- coc.vim

Re: Vim 9.0

#143

Post by calvinmorrison »

Diederich wrote: post #6
givemeethekeys wrote: post #4

I'm curious: - How deep a rabbit hole do most people go down when setting up their vim / neovim environment? Apart from setting up a preferred color and language specific tab spacing and highlighting, I don't need more, but I've seen some pretty fancy setups. Out of the different plugins, which would you never operate without?

I've been using vi/vim on a near daily basis for 34 years now and this is the only thing I put in ~/.vimrc: set tabstop=4 set expandtab set shiftwidth=4 " or 2 or whatever set shiftround syntax on EDIT: Just for some fun archeology, I google searched on the 3rd line, 'set shiftwidth=4 " or 2 or whatever' because I very dimly recall copying most of my standard set (minus the syntax on bit) from someone else a long lon…

I may get flak for this but I have done it since I started using vim more than a decade ago...

noremap ; l

noremap l k

noremap k j

noremap j h

Re: Vim 9.0

#144

Post by cturtle »

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #55
undoware wrote: post #25

I loved vi for decades, but I don't miss it. Neovim is my current go-to but even this feels stodgy these days. Helix Editor is probably my future -- it manages to have just the right features, but with saner defaults and syntax -- but it will take a while for me to work up the nerve to let go of the investment in muscle memory.

I don't think going all in on treesitter is very practical, considering basic python indentation has not been functional for over a year. I think Helix is a little bit too much of niche layered on niche, and Kakoune is much better all around in my experience. https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter/issues/80...

My understanding is that treesitter doesn't do anything with indentation. I believe the issues described in the linked issues are neovim specific.

So it should be possible in theory to use treesitter data to calculate indents, though it seems difficult.

Re: Vim 9.0

#145

Post by kelnos »

margarina72 wrote: post #108
kzrdude wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're used to open projects but Bram's seems to be that he wants to be in control, he's the main author. So Vim is then open source but not a completely open project.

open source mean the source is a open (and few other points described in [0]). Vim licence [1] is GPL compatible. It is fully open source. Open source does not mean the maintainer is under the obligation to add features, or integrate PRs. [0]: https://opensource.org/osd [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/vim-license.txt

I think you mistake the parent's point. Vim's code is certainly open source (I don't think anyone disputes that), but its development model is not the one we've come to be comfortable with. Moolenar maintains an iron grip on vim, and controls what goes in (and what doesn't) much more strictly than many other open source projects. That is certainly his prerogative, but it's also the prerogative of others to not like that, and want to fork and create something that is more welcoming to outside contributions.

Re: Vim 9.0

#146

Post by weakfish »

mempko wrote: post #110
Tyr42 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean all Bram had to do was accept the async patches instead of ignoring them. Then neovim wouldn't have got off the ground. Once they started building, they wanted to "cut the cruft" and just went from there

Ignore them? Far from it. Brahm provided a lot of feedback. The authors got lazy abd forked instead of dealing with criticism of their design.

Forking is hardly easier

Re: Vim 9.0

#147

Post by kelnos »

anonydsfsfs wrote: post #140
jonaustin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vim has been around long enough that I'd argue it's just as much owned by the community at this point.

I just checked the repo[0], and it says Bram has authored 95% of all commits to Vim. To say "the community owns Vim" when they've done ~5% of the work reminds me of group projects in school where one person does all the work and everyone else claims credit. [0] https://github.com/vim/vim

I'm not sure this is because no one wants to contribute. I think it's more because Moolenar prefers to do the work himself, and doesn't like to accept much in the way of contributions from others. He's certainly allowed to run his project that way, but I can see why it might turn some people off.

Re: Vim 9.0

#148

Post by animal_spirits »

anonydsfsfs wrote: post #140
jonaustin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vim has been around long enough that I'd argue it's just as much owned by the community at this point.

I just checked the repo[0], and it says Bram has authored 95% of all commits to Vim. To say "the community owns Vim" when they've done ~5% of the work reminds me of group projects in school where one person does all the work and everyone else claims credit. [0] https://github.com/vim/vim

For a while Bram would copy paste all proposed changes from other peoples branches to his own branches and therefore giving himself the git-blame for the code. I think only recently he started allowing other people to actually maintain the repo.

Re: Vim 9.0

#149

Post by mayama »

dvogel wrote: post #97
capableweb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case, the motivation was simply insufficient. Some people wanted vimscript+lua instead of vimscript. They felt the code was too difficult. They wanted to develop on their own. > Couldn't they not convince Bram Moolenaar of proposed changes I think (but someone correct me if I'm wrong) it started out with one of the persons who started Neovim, tried to get in a patch adding async support in Vim, but Moolenaa…

This has entered the popular lore but I think it is easily proved false. The thread in question: https://groups.google.com/g/vim_dev/c/-4pqDJfHCsM/m/LSFNhqs2... My read of that thread was that the initial patch had a lot of issues. The design had some flaws. The patch lacked documentation. It was like they didn't read the contributing guide. Lots of bystanders threw a bunch of noise into an otherwise normal dev proce…

> The patch authors never replied. They may develop under aliases but I've never seen either of their handles in the neovim commit history.

So, who forked neovim and what does this timers patch have to do with forking if the patch authors weren't the ones forking neovim.

Re: Vim 9.0

#150

Post by lifthrasiir »

kelnos wrote: post #145
margarina72 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

open source mean the source is a open (and few other points described in [0]). Vim licence [1] is GPL compatible. It is fully open source. Open source does not mean the maintainer is under the obligation to add features, or integrate PRs. [0]: https://opensource.org/osd [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/vim-license.txt

I think you mistake the parent's point. Vim's code is certainly open source (I don't think anyone disputes that), but its development model is not the one we've come to be comfortable with. Moolenar maintains an iron grip on vim, and controls what goes in (and what doesn't) much more strictly than many other open source projects. That is certainly his prerogative, but it's also the prerogative of others to not like t…

But "open project" is not a helpful term either, which can mean anything from an open-for-suggestion proprietary project to a maximally open project (whatever it means). The correct term would be "open governance". We perceive "open" as something positive, which is of course not always true and there are different kinds of "open".
Post reply on HN