3 ms·
I feel exactly the opposite. The previous editors that I used required configuration through a menu system. I wouldn't have known how to take that with me elsew
by billybob 15y ago
I feel exactly the opposite. The previous editors that I used required configuration through a menu system. I wouldn't have known how to take that with me elsewhere.
With Vim, all my configuration is in files, which can be backed up. I have them in a dotfiles repo on Github. As I make tweaks, I regularly pull and push from my various computers and they are always up to date. If I'm on a computer that doesn't have my .vimrc, I'm just a `git pull` away from having it. (Same goes for zsh config, etc.)
The most likely time for me not to have my .vimrc is when sshing into a server, in which case I can use stock vim just fine. If my main editor were a GUI, I wouldn't have it available at all, so I think Vim has a leg up in that, too.
- billybob 15y agoBy the way, if you're ever confused about what behavior is native and what comes from your config, use the `-u "NONE"` option to run vanilla vim (or macvim or gvim).
- secoif 15y agoyou can get around this by editing remote files with your vim over scp http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Editing_remote_files_via_scp_in_vim http://vim.wikia.com/wiki/Editing_remote_files_via_scp_in_vi...
- bostonvaulter2 15y agoI do the same thing. But I also have customized branches to work with my config. I will usually make new commits on the computer-specific branch and then cherry pick the commits to master and then rebase the computer-specific branch on top of master. This can get a little repetitive and result in my computer-specific branches getting very out of date so I wrote a bash script called git-update to streamline this process for me. Here's the code: https://github.com/axelson/git-update https://github.com/axelson/git-update