6 ms·
I would be interested in seeing vim, nvim, and emacs performance using a slew of plugins to get to the point where their functionality is close to the features
by drewbailey 10y ago
I would be interested in seeing vim, nvim, and emacs performance using a slew of plugins to get to the point where their functionality is close to the features that sublime/atom/vscode have out of the box.
- Philipp__ 10y agoEmacs has many of those out of the box, you just need to tweak/enable them. The worst thing about Emacs is it's default settings, because the whole point of it's existence is customization to very niche and personal needs.
- pawadu 10y ago> The worst thing about Emacs is it's default settings You are right, but the default vim is not that great either...
- farresito 10y agoSame. I'm not really sure what it is, but the moment you add a few plugins to vim, you definitely notice a slowdown. I'm sure it's the abomination that vimL is.
- Lio 10y agoThat of course depends on how you add your plugins. For example if you use something like vim-plug[1] (amongst many plugin managers) then you can use on-demand loading to make keep start up times lean.
- farresito 10y agoI do use plug, actually. It was more a complain to the fact that the editor does feel a bit sluggish sometimes if you have a few plugins on. I think vimL is a pretty darn slow language (not to say that it's probably one of the worst languages I've ever touched).
- lazyjones 10y agoI wouldn't, because none of that functionality is/should be involved in the simple tasks that were benchmarked in the article. If it still slows down these things by orders of magnitude, it has to be implemented sloppily, don't you think?