3 ms·
"actual active development that isn's a single contributor is going to create a better project" Depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you just wa
by massysett 10y ago
"actual active development that isn's a single contributor is going to create a better project"
Depends on what your definition of "better" is. If you just want stable software that's bug free, multiple contributors might actually make the software worse. A lot of people use vim in a way such that Neovim will be no improvement.
Neovim could become like the next zsh. I use zsh every day and have for years. I think it's "better". But for most people bash is good enough so they use it. The things that are better in zsh are not things they care about, so they will not bother switching.
- jay-anderson 10y agoI'd be okay with that result (bash : zsh :: vim : neovim). Whatever the result I think vi(m) users are winning in the end. One side benefit of neovim existing is a push for vim to get similar feature and step up their development efforts. One difference I see with this comparison is neovim's goal: `feature-parity and backwards compatibility are high priorities`. If they succeed in this then there'd be little downside to switching.