4 ms·
I'll admit I didn't look into it, but Helix sounds like something like LunarVim (https://www.lunarvim.org/ https://www.lunarvim.org/) Personally I much prefer
by daedalus_j 3y ago
I'll admit I didn't look into it, but Helix sounds like something like LunarVim (https://www.lunarvim.org/ https://www.lunarvim.org/)
Personally I much prefer that the editor NOT ship with something like that by default, especially when it's so easy to set up. I have several different vim config I use, including a pretty bare-bones one for headless systems, and I much prefer the ability to customize something very specifically.
Build tools that can compose together, rather than a single do-it-all tool. That is the power of the low level editors vs IDE's.
- Exuma 3y agoYes I think we are saying the same thing. I don’t think vim should ship with more than what it does either
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- onehair 3y agoYou can still leverage the power of low level editors, just like helix does, and still have access to important things that so not require pages upon pages of configuration and plugin stitching to just get up and running in most projects you want vim or emacs like editing capabilities. Helix is different from Lunar in the sense that the features it comes with are part of the core editor and the editor still feeling like an editor
- zelphirkalt 3y agoI counted the number of config lines it takes in Emacs to get LSP fo Python: Maybe 2 lines, if you otherwise would not use company-mode. 1 line requiring lsp-mode. 1 line setting lsp diagnostics provider. 1 line adding lsp mode to python-mode-hook. 2 lines enabling the linter (if you want that) (I use flake8). 2 lines for setting an additional shortcut. 23 completely optional lines for marking some variables from .dir-locals as accepted/safe. 1 optional line for changing the color of the breadcrumbs header line. Approximately 2/3 of a page, including all optional config I have.