6 ms·
Vimscript is terrible though. I switched from Emacs to Vim (and later, neovim) last year and the shock of going from elisp to vimscript was intense. I even con
by simias 5y ago
Vimscript is terrible though. I switched from Emacs to Vim (and later, neovim) last year and the shock of going from elisp to vimscript was intense.
I even contributed some small patches to a couple of vim plugins which meant writing and debugging vimscript, I hated every second of it.
I'm not a huge fan of Lua either mind you, but I'll take it any day of the week over vimscript.
- jrop 5y agoI've always wanted to write Vim plugins, and as soon as 0.5 hits stable, I'm looking forward to trying! I won't touch VimScript with a 10-foot pole, and I write code for a living. It's not worth my time, and it does not commute to other things that I'd rather be spending my time coding.
- Asooka 5y agoBut you can use Python to write Vim and NeoVim plugins already. It's arguably an even better language than Lua.
- revscat 5y agoThis is demonstrably and unequivocally untrue. Lua is designed to be fast, lightweight, and easy to use as an embedded scripting language. Python is a general-purpose kitchen sink language. Python is 10x bigger, and 10x slower than Lua. It is bad fit for an embedded language.
- samus 5y agoI don't have experience with Vimscript, but I know both Lua and Python. It seems that the biggest benefit is gained by stepping up from Vimscript to any of those two. Switching to the other would only have diminishing returns, if at all. Apart from that, Lua was explicitly designed to be embedded. Python is designed as a scripting language that can bind to C code, and embedding seems to be an afterthought.
- iLemming 5y ago> I'm not a huge fan of Lua either mind you If you liked emacs-lisp, perhaps you should try Fennel. It's a tiny Lisp that compiles to Lua with zero overhead. It's pretty dope.
- simias 5y agoOh, that sounds interesting, thanks for the tip!