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

61–70 of 372 posts

Re: Neovim

#61

Post by philsnow »

cicero wrote: post #38
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.…

> 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.

Does ^[ cancel input in any programs ? AFAIK vim understands the ^[, not the "escape key". the key labeled "ESC" creating a ^[ is a convention used in terminal emulators.

Not that it's going to help you now, but if you had trained your fingers to hit ^[ rather than the escape key (or even ^C but that has other semantics in windows whereas I don't think ^[ does), I wonder if you would be having the same problem now..

Re: Neovim

#62

Post by jneen »

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…

This is essentially where I'm going with ix. Vim with an awesome haskell-like language underneath whose syntax is optimized for doing powerful stuff in command mode.

A prototype is at https://github.com/jayferd/ixl-prototype

Re: Neovim

#63

Post by tinco »

cicero wrote: post #38
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.…

Sorry, I didn't mean you should be ashamed about using old software. What I meant was that we should be ashamed that other people are using old software.

I am helping my girlfriend to learn Javascript, and it hurts inside that every once in a while she gets confused with something I have to explain her it's because the author of the language made rookie mistakes/dumb decisions 20 years ago.

Re: Neovim

#64

Post by tinco »

roel_v wrote: post #52
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…

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 t…

Haha, thanks roel. I'm so glad to be relieved of the duty to try to improve things you use...

And let me extend my apologies in name of all the authors of software whose extra features and nice bug-freeness you enjoyed at the terrible cost of going through the gruelling process of having to upgrade your software.

Perhaps all us developers of modern software could get together raise funds so you could get a refurbished pink iMac G3. Before all those pesky Apple people started their code purity fetishist backwards compatibility breaking migration to a BSD+Mach based OSX.

Re: Neovim

#65

Post by kansface »

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.

Bram shows no interest in these sorts of things. Frequently, devs post to the vim mailing with a month or two of work on some new feature with no comment from the BDFL.

Re: Neovim

#66

Post by Crito »

tinco wrote: post #59
robinhoodexe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If that is all you need and expect from a replacement for LaTeX, why aren't you just using LibreOffice?

Re: Neovim

#67

Post by DennisP »

tinco wrote: post #63
cicero wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Sorry, I didn't mean you should be ashamed about using old software. What I meant was that we should be ashamed that other people are using old software. I am helping my girlfriend to learn Javascript, and it hurts inside that every once in a while she gets confused with something I have to explain her it's because the author of the language made rookie mistakes/dumb decisions 20 years ago.

You may know this, but the author of Javascript was under severe time pressure, and wanted to just implement Scheme but got overruled by management.

Re: Neovim

#68

Post by swdunlop »

swah wrote: post #39
swdunlop wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

There's source code, a BSD license and the README describes their rationale right up front. In light of just the superficial information on github, your comment seems hyperbolic.

My interest in the project is in something with a design similar to Sublime Text that works remotely in an SSH session. There's also some exotica about wrapping Python in a Go process which I find interesting and terrifying.

Re: Neovim

#69

Post by chongli »

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…

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.

What?! You can take my vim+bash+tmux+urxvt when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Re: Neovim

#70

Post by tarruda »

segphault wrote: post #27
tarruda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually is planned on the first iteration of the fundraiser, see the FAQ

That's really great! After reading the FAQ, I have contributed $100. Best of luck with the project!

Thanks a lot :)
Post reply on HN