13 ms·

I think comparison list with other editors gives good introduction about what to expect from ox, For any terminal text editor comparison with vim, emacs is inev

by acd10j 6y ago

I think comparison list with other editors gives good introduction about what to expect from ox, For any terminal text editor comparison with vim, emacs is inevitable. It is good to know authors opinions.

filsdyhdkddk 6y ago
If you're expecting vim or emacs, you're in for a bad time. It's entirely unclear what niche this editor is aiming for. If it's a replacement for the editors it claims as inspiration it's not going to succeed.
themodelplumber 6y ago
For sure. Also the author is probably going to get bombarded by people referencing their favorite editors. This may help them get out in front of that scene...
apocolyps6 6y ago
> good introduction about what to expect from ox Yes, after reading how the author described vim and emacs, I knew this project was not for me.
- jek0 6y ago
  "vim only provides basic text editing functionality by default" It looks like someone has never read the vim manual.
  - tasuki 6y ago
    Yes, and at the same time the author claims: "Ox is easier to use than Vim because it doesn’t have modes where the keyboard is repurposed" So vim both only provides basic text editing functionality and is harder to use than Ox? Vim has a special "insert mode" in which the keyboard is repurposed for entering text. I don't think that's a very hard concept to grasp.
oefrha 6y ago
Comparison is fair. What's presented there isn't exactly a comparison, though. It claims to "take features from some of the most popular editors out there, gaining the best of all worlds", then proceed to list features that are decidedly not the best, nor even differentiating: - Vim: they took away "being a keyboard-only editor" (every CLI/TUI text editor?) and "being able to act just like an IDE after some configuration" (most programmer text editors?). Also, "being a keyboard-only editor" isn't even accurate for vim, it totally supports mouse input even in a terminal: https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xterm https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xt... - Emacs: they took away "a configuration system where you can change the colours and appearance of the editor"... This is adequately discussed elsewhere in the thread. Therefore, gp's analogy of taking away wheels and tires from Ferrari is apt.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  And if this is the first car you are building, that may even sound pretty impressive. I’m not really sure what to think of everyone being so negative here.
  - oefrha 6y ago
    Who argued whether it’s impressive or not? People are not impressed with the rather pointless “we take the best features out of popular editors” section of README that neither adds to nor detracts from the editor itself, and only unnecessarily antagonizes people by mischaracterizing other editors. You can build an impressive car without pointlessly referencing Ferrari.

by acd10j 6y ago

filsdyhdkddk 6y ago

If you're expecting vim or emacs, you're in for a bad time. It's entirely unclear what niche this editor is aiming for. If it's a replacement for the editors it claims as inspiration it's not going to succeed.

themodelplumber 6y ago

For sure. Also the author is probably going to get bombarded by people referencing their favorite editors. This may help them get out in front of that scene...

apocolyps6 6y ago

> good introduction about what to expect from ox Yes, after reading how the author described vim and emacs, I knew this project was not for me.

jek0 6y ago
"vim only provides basic text editing functionality by default" It looks like someone has never read the vim manual.
- tasuki 6y ago
  Yes, and at the same time the author claims: "Ox is easier to use than Vim because it doesn’t have modes where the keyboard is repurposed" So vim both only provides basic text editing functionality and is harder to use than Ox? Vim has a special "insert mode" in which the keyboard is repurposed for entering text. I don't think that's a very hard concept to grasp.

oefrha 6y ago

Comparison is fair. What's presented there isn't exactly a comparison, though. It claims to "take features from some of the most popular editors out there, gaining the best of all worlds", then proceed to list features that are decidedly not the best, nor even differentiating: - Vim: they took away "being a keyboard-only editor" (every CLI/TUI text editor?) and "being able to act just like an IDE after some configuration" (most programmer text editors?). Also, "being a keyboard-only editor" isn't even accurate for vim, it totally supports mouse input even in a terminal: https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xterm https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xt... - Emacs: they took away "a configuration system where you can change the colours and appearance of the editor"... This is adequately discussed elsewhere in the thread. Therefore, gp's analogy of taking away wheels and tires from Ferrari is apt.

Aeolun 6y ago
And if this is the first car you are building, that may even sound pretty impressive. I’m not really sure what to think of everyone being so negative here.
- oefrha 6y ago
  Who argued whether it’s impressive or not? People are not impressed with the rather pointless “we take the best features out of popular editors” section of README that neither adds to nor detracts from the editor itself, and only unnecessarily antagonizes people by mischaracterizing other editors. You can build an impressive car without pointlessly referencing Ferrari.