3 ms·
It's easier to maintain one codebase than to maintain two forks. If development of vim dropped and neovim was nominated as its successor, I'd think most vim us
by rgoulter 3y ago
It's easier to maintain one codebase than to maintain two forks.
If development of vim dropped and neovim was nominated as its successor, I'd think most vim users would be just fine.
- OJFord 3y agoYes, if vim were unmaintained I would switch, that would be a reason to change. But it's not, or at very least hasn't been, so I haven't, that hasn't been a reason to.
- halostatue 3y agoNot those of us who gvim/MacVim. Give a real alternative to those instead of the many quarter-implemented GUI shells that are really no better than running Electron, and the switch might be able to happen.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> It's easier to maintain one codebase than to maintain two forks. Not necessarily; if the two codebases are maintained by groups of people with incompatible ideas about how the code should work and what it should do, then keeping things separate is much easier. > If development of vim dropped and neovim was nominated as its successor, I'd think most vim users would be just fine. Agreed; they don't diverge that much from an end-user's perspective.