8 ms·

> the value proposition is: neovim, with vscode compatible snippets and typescript-language-server-driven autocomplete (also works with vanilla JS) out of the b

by zeveb 9y ago

> the value proposition is: neovim, with vscode compatible snippets and typescript-language-server-driven autocomplete (also works with vanilla JS) out of the box How's that compare to emacs? It sounds like it can be extended with Vimscript or JavaScript? Emacs has several snippet/templating options, and of course it also has several autocomplete options. > The bonus value proposition is: since it is a GUI wrapper around neovim, you get to retain all of the muscle memory you have built up in your years of using vim, but potentially also get all of the goodies that a graphical IDE like vscode provides. Emacs has had a X GUI for about 25 years (and of course vim has had various GUIs, too — although I think less powerful & extensible). I really don't understand what the value proposition is here. Rather than using Electron and JavaScript and Vimscript and an ancient C core, why not use X/Cocoa/WinAPI, elisp & a relatively thin C VM? I always thought that the value proposition of the vi family was small, lightweight, fast-booting, found-everywhere, clean — not arcane, baroque, complex, hyper-extensible, flexible & hairy (that's emacs's value proposition!). From my point of view, all of these huge environments built atop vi are simply reinventing emacs, poorly — and worse, they're destroying the wonderful things I always loved & respected about vi! Just as an example, if you want to build a 'gamified tutor mode,' maybe the original AI language might be a good choice? Certainly, folks should be free to follow their bliss. I don't really begrudge the Oni guys their project (although I'd obviously love it if they spent that energy & brilliance a little further up the stack, e.g. by making a great text/GUI browser mode for emacs) — I just don't get it.

bryphe 9y ago
Maintainer here. Thank you for the thoughtful and articulate feedback! I appreciate you sharing your perspective and I'll give you some of my thoughts. > How's that compare to emacs? It sounds like it can be extended with Vimscript or JavaScript? Emacs has several snippet/templating options, and of course it also has several autocomplete options. Every editor is an exercise in trade-offs. Emacs, Vim, VSCode, Sublime, Atom - what defines them is their trade-offs and execution. The strength that modern editors have is that you get a lot working out of-the-box - when I boot up Emacs on Windows (or gVim for that matter), I get a (subjectively) ugly UI with no language support. That's not to say I can't configure it to look and function beautifully - but the trend with the modern editors like Atom & VSCode is to have an 'it just works' mentality. If you have a finely-honed Emacs config, sure, there might not be appreciable benefits for you. But a new user may not want to distill the several snippet/templating options. I'd compare it to a car - a passionate driver might buy a kit car and finely hone the transmission, handling, etc. They probably won't be happy with the automatic transmission they find in a car at the Nissan dealership... But the automatic transmission ends up being convenient enough for a lot of people. > I really don't understand what the value proposition is here. Rather than using Electron and JavaScript and Vimscript and an ancient C core, why not use X/Cocoa/WinAPI, elisp & a relatively thin C VM? The reason I open-sourced the project was because I wanted help developing it. That's part of the joy of open source. And when you look at technology trends, like the [StackOverflow Developer Survey](https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology), if I want others to help me, it makes sense to use the most popular technology today. > From my point of view, all of these huge environments built atop vi are simply reinventing emacs, poorly — and worse, they're destroying the wonderful things I always loved & respected about vi! Yes, I think we have two different perspectives here, and that's okay. What I love about vi & vim is the modal editing aspect - I think the composable, modal language is a beautiful and efficient way to manipulate text. That's the piece that's important to me. > Certainly, folks should be free to follow their bliss. I don't really begrudge the Oni guys their project (although I'd obviously love it if they spent that energy & brilliance a little further up the stack, e.g. by making a great text/GUI browser mode for emacs) — I just don't get it. Cheers :) FYI, our 'editor' implementation is extensible, so it doesn't preclude having another sort of driver - it'd be technically feasible to plug something else in there, too (in fact, we have some pure javascript 'editors' that we use as test cases). Not inconceivable that someone could drop-in an editor that talks to Emacs, Xi, etc. But at the end of the day, I recognize that the trade-offs we make for Oni are only going to appeal to a niche of users. Having new editors exploring different possibilities can help the whole ecosystem, even if it doesn't directly target your niche - as other editors get inspired by the 'good parts' - and at the end of the day we all end up with better tools.
pault 9y ago
I think comparing it to emacs is kind of missing the point; Oni is primarily targeting two groups of users: long time vim users who want to spend less time configuring plugins and who want some of the modern features that newer IDEs provide; and users of said IDEs who want to experiment with vim but find the learning curve to be a little too steep. > Emacs has several snippet/templating options, and of course it also has several autocomplete options. So does vanilla vim, and you can script vim or emacs to do _anything_, but not everybody wants to put that kind of effort into extending their text editor. > Emacs has had a X GUI for about 25 years (and of course vim has had various GUIs, too — although I think less powerful & extensible). That's true, and those are great bits of kit, but there's always room for something new, right? :) > Rather than using Electron and JavaScript and Vimscript and an ancient C core... Oni is built on top of neovim, which is a modern C core and very nice from what I've heard. :) Also, I don't think Oni would be as far along as it is today if the creator had used native languages and frameworks; at least it wouldn't be available on my mac because IIRC he is primarily a windows user. :D

by zeveb 9y ago

bryphe 9y ago

Maintainer here. Thank you for the thoughtful and articulate feedback! I appreciate you sharing your perspective and I'll give you some of my thoughts. > How's that compare to emacs? It sounds like it can be extended with Vimscript or JavaScript? Emacs has several snippet/templating options, and of course it also has several autocomplete options. Every editor is an exercise in trade-offs. Emacs, Vim, VSCode, Sublime, Atom - what defines them is their trade-offs and execution. The strength that modern editors have is that you get a lot working out of-the-box - when I boot up Emacs on Windows (or gVim for that matter), I get a (subjectively) ugly UI with no language support. That's not to say I can't configure it to look and function beautifully - but the trend with the modern editors like Atom & VSCode is to have an 'it just works' mentality. If you have a finely-honed Emacs config, sure, there might not be appreciable benefits for you. But a new user may not want to distill the several snippet/templating options. I'd compare it to a car - a passionate driver might buy a kit car and finely hone the transmission, handling, etc. They probably won't be happy with the automatic transmission they find in a car at the Nissan dealership... But the automatic transmission ends up being convenient enough for a lot of people. > I really don't understand what the value proposition is here. Rather than using Electron and JavaScript and Vimscript and an ancient C core, why not use X/Cocoa/WinAPI, elisp & a relatively thin C VM? The reason I open-sourced the project was because I wanted help developing it. That's part of the joy of open source. And when you look at technology trends, like the [StackOverflow Developer Survey](https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#technology), if I want others to help me, it makes sense to use the most popular technology today. > From my point of view, all of these huge environments built atop vi are simply reinventing emacs, poorly — and worse, they're destroying the wonderful things I always loved & respected about vi! Yes, I think we have two different perspectives here, and that's okay. What I love about vi & vim is the modal editing aspect - I think the composable, modal language is a beautiful and efficient way to manipulate text. That's the piece that's important to me. > Certainly, folks should be free to follow their bliss. I don't really begrudge the Oni guys their project (although I'd obviously love it if they spent that energy & brilliance a little further up the stack, e.g. by making a great text/GUI browser mode for emacs) — I just don't get it. Cheers :) FYI, our 'editor' implementation is extensible, so it doesn't preclude having another sort of driver - it'd be technically feasible to plug something else in there, too (in fact, we have some pure javascript 'editors' that we use as test cases). Not inconceivable that someone could drop-in an editor that talks to Emacs, Xi, etc. But at the end of the day, I recognize that the trade-offs we make for Oni are only going to appeal to a niche of users. Having new editors exploring different possibilities can help the whole ecosystem, even if it doesn't directly target your niche - as other editors get inspired by the 'good parts' - and at the end of the day we all end up with better tools.

pault 9y ago

I think comparing it to emacs is kind of missing the point; Oni is primarily targeting two groups of users: long time vim users who want to spend less time configuring plugins and who want some of the modern features that newer IDEs provide; and users of said IDEs who want to experiment with vim but find the learning curve to be a little too steep. > Emacs has several snippet/templating options, and of course it also has several autocomplete options. So does vanilla vim, and you can script vim or emacs to do _anything_, but not everybody wants to put that kind of effort into extending their text editor. > Emacs has had a X GUI for about 25 years (and of course vim has had various GUIs, too — although I think less powerful & extensible). That's true, and those are great bits of kit, but there's always room for something new, right? :) > Rather than using Electron and JavaScript and Vimscript and an ancient C core... Oni is built on top of neovim, which is a modern C core and very nice from what I've heard. :) Also, I don't think Oni would be as far along as it is today if the creator had used native languages and frameworks; at least it wouldn't be available on my mac because IIRC he is primarily a windows user. :D