4 ms·

> The more things get built-in (like LSP in neovim) the better. Since someone inevitably mentions Helix on the *vim threads (and vice versa), I'll be that pers

by abound 3y ago

> The more things get built-in (like LSP in neovim) the better. Since someone inevitably mentions Helix on the *vim threads (and vice versa), I'll be that person today. This is one of the things I think Helix gets right. It has the LSP, fuzzy finder, and a few other modern tablestakes features built-in, which makes it a joy to use. I spent a decade+ using (Neo)vim, and went from a few hundred lines of homegrown vimrc to maybe 6 or 7 lines of Helix config, for a few bits of muscle memory I couldn't shake.

imjonse 3y ago
How much effort was switching to the different keybindings Helix uses?
- sxg 3y ago
  Not the OP, but surprisingly it didn’t take long. I just worked through the helix-tutor and was good to go in a few hours. Helix isn’t simply an alternative set of keybindings—it’s a different way of thinking about selections and actions. Once that thinking becomes intuitive, Helix’s keybindings just come naturally.
- abound 3y ago
  Same as sxg, it was surprisingly easy. Maybe a day or two of fumbling around before I got into the usual flow with it. I still use vi mode for bash, and occasionally use Vim on systems without Helix. I definitely stumble a bit now, but it seems possible to retain muscle memory for both without much effort.
- rgoulter 3y ago
  I mainly use Evil mode on Emacs, but have switched to use Helix for when I need a terminal editor. It feels like the majority of Helix keybindings are the same as vim. Similar to how with vi-emulators, you'll bump into things you use that the emulator doesn't have; with Helix, you'll bump into keybindings you expect, which are different in Helix. https://gist.github.com/rgoulter/af83932a45c79f9f3fb673d8813f5354 https://gist.github.com/rgoulter/af83932a45c79f9f3fb673d8813... The impression I get is that Helix's keybindings are well thought out. e.g. u/U for undo/redo vs vim's u/C-r. e.g. rather than Vim's H/M/L, Helix uses "go top"/"go centre"/"go bottom" (gt/gc/gb); and the bindings which jump the cursor around all use this `g` prefix. Switching back and forth between Vim and Helix, there'll still be false-friends from time to time.

by abound 3y ago

imjonse 3y ago

How much effort was switching to the different keybindings Helix uses?

sxg 3y ago
Not the OP, but surprisingly it didn’t take long. I just worked through the helix-tutor and was good to go in a few hours. Helix isn’t simply an alternative set of keybindings—it’s a different way of thinking about selections and actions. Once that thinking becomes intuitive, Helix’s keybindings just come naturally.
abound 3y ago
Same as sxg, it was surprisingly easy. Maybe a day or two of fumbling around before I got into the usual flow with it. I still use vi mode for bash, and occasionally use Vim on systems without Helix. I definitely stumble a bit now, but it seems possible to retain muscle memory for both without much effort.
rgoulter 3y ago
I mainly use Evil mode on Emacs, but have switched to use Helix for when I need a terminal editor. It feels like the majority of Helix keybindings are the same as vim. Similar to how with vi-emulators, you'll bump into things you use that the emulator doesn't have; with Helix, you'll bump into keybindings you expect, which are different in Helix. https://gist.github.com/rgoulter/af83932a45c79f9f3fb673d8813f5354 https://gist.github.com/rgoulter/af83932a45c79f9f3fb673d8813... The impression I get is that Helix's keybindings are well thought out. e.g. u/U for undo/redo vs vim's u/C-r. e.g. rather than Vim's H/M/L, Helix uses "go top"/"go centre"/"go bottom" (gt/gc/gb); and the bindings which jump the cursor around all use this `g` prefix. Switching back and forth between Vim and Helix, there'll still be false-friends from time to time.