6 ms·

Given what he's saying here -- that Vim is in "maintenance mode" -- I don't think you'll need any formal merge. Neovim is just where all new development is done

Given what he's saying here -- that Vim is in "maintenance mode" -- I don't think you'll need any formal merge. Neovim is just where all new development is done, and it'll slowly replace traditional Vim over time.

meitham 2y ago
I'm not sure admins of old mainframes from the 80s would be interested in getting latest vim running on their hosts! I still use whatever old version of vim that came with my freenas.
- mkozlows 2y ago
  I mean, sure. But like, vim never merged with vi, either -- to this day, you can find old things that are still running pre-vim versions of vi. It's just that over time, more and more things switched their default version of vi to vim, just as over time, more and more things will switch their default version of vim to neovim.
- Keyframe 2y ago
  vi != vim
- skissane 2y ago
  > I'm not sure admins of old mainframes from the 80s would be interested in getting latest vim running on their hosts! I doubt many 1980s mainframes were ever capable of running vim. People on 80s mainframes generally used mainframe text editors such as ISPF Edit (on MVS) or XEDIT (on VM/CMS) Vim’s makefile does have support in it for compiling on Amdahl UTS, Amdahl’s Unix port for IBM-compatible mainframes, and so possibly vim could have run on an 80s mainframe running UTS. However, I’m sceptical there are any mainframes left running UTS anywhere on this planet-nobody uses it in production any more (apparently the last production users were some US telcos in the first decade of this century). I doubt any of the small number of still-working 80s/90s IBM(-compatible) mainframe systems in hobbyist or museum hands run it. There is a version available online you can run in an emulator, but it is an ancient version from the 1970s, whereas I believe the vim port is to a newer 1990s version-and I don’t believe any of those newer UTS versions are publicly available-either they survive in some private collection, or they’ve already been lost to the sands of time.
mi_lk 2y ago
> Neovim is just where all new development is done, and it'll slowly replace traditional Vim over time. Nailed it. Bram made the decision on his own and vim's fate is stuck with it. I was bitter about it but now I think it's best for both communities.
johnea 2y ago
"replace" ha ha! Not likely. The directions for the projects seem pretty distinct. It should be noted that some original vi are still installed by default when installing some OSs. The whole idea that a project needs to be in constant new-feature mode is just not reality. Just as one example: I'm still using the fluxbox desktop (about 25 years now), and it still meets my top level GUI needs for interacting with my workstation. I don't really _want_ it to change. I want the UI to be exactly the same after an update, so as not to disrupt my workflow.
- wruza 2y ago
  Yep. It's not that text editing changed much since <yearnumber>. And the more years passed, the less there is to "feature". Projects with constant new features after many years of development demonstrably don't know what they need and how to let themselves pause and reflect.
- lenkite 2y ago
  It is extremely likely that the default distribution of vimwill be neovim and not vim after a decade. Just like vim replaced vi, neovim will gradually replace vim. Being maintenance-mode software means only greybeards (and some stubborn holdouts) will stick to it over time and as greybeards retire, the new maintainers of linux distributions who are more familiar with neovim will make their choice.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Vim and nvim are different and have different goals. One is for people that enjoy Lua, the other is vim.
wruza 2y ago
Or it will meet the issues all "new development" projects meet and live through its first crises. Cause having new features comes at a cost, and people eventually grow tired of costs they can't just throw money at.
menaerus 2y ago
I am a long-time vim user and haven't had time to watch neovim developments more closely. What would be the incentive to move to Neovim, e.g. what are its best-selling features that vim doesn't have? Genuine question.
- juanrgar 2y ago
  It's 'native' LSP for me. I have coc.nvim in Vim and it's great, but it depends on nodejs. Tree-sitter is another good one, although in my experience it might increase CPU usage noticeably.
  - menaerus 2y ago
    I usually only have LSP for a single language so coc is not of much use for me. Syntax highlighting rendering engine in vim OTOH could use some speed improvements. I see it drowning sometimes on larger files with sematic syntax highlighting.
- petepete 2y ago
  For me it's Tree-sitter support. It builds a syntax tree for your files incredibly fast and allows the editor to use it for various things, including much better syntax highlighting. https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/ https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/

meitham 2y ago

I'm not sure admins of old mainframes from the 80s would be interested in getting latest vim running on their hosts! I still use whatever old version of vim that came with my freenas.

mkozlows 2y ago
I mean, sure. But like, vim never merged with vi, either -- to this day, you can find old things that are still running pre-vim versions of vi. It's just that over time, more and more things switched their default version of vi to vim, just as over time, more and more things will switch their default version of vim to neovim.
Keyframe 2y ago
vi != vim
skissane 2y ago
> I'm not sure admins of old mainframes from the 80s would be interested in getting latest vim running on their hosts! I doubt many 1980s mainframes were ever capable of running vim. People on 80s mainframes generally used mainframe text editors such as ISPF Edit (on MVS) or XEDIT (on VM/CMS) Vim’s makefile does have support in it for compiling on Amdahl UTS, Amdahl’s Unix port for IBM-compatible mainframes, and so possibly vim could have run on an 80s mainframe running UTS. However, I’m sceptical there are any mainframes left running UTS anywhere on this planet-nobody uses it in production any more (apparently the last production users were some US telcos in the first decade of this century). I doubt any of the small number of still-working 80s/90s IBM(-compatible) mainframe systems in hobbyist or museum hands run it. There is a version available online you can run in an emulator, but it is an ancient version from the 1970s, whereas I believe the vim port is to a newer 1990s version-and I don’t believe any of those newer UTS versions are publicly available-either they survive in some private collection, or they’ve already been lost to the sands of time.

mi_lk 2y ago

> Neovim is just where all new development is done, and it'll slowly replace traditional Vim over time. Nailed it. Bram made the decision on his own and vim's fate is stuck with it. I was bitter about it but now I think it's best for both communities.

johnea 2y ago

"replace" ha ha! Not likely. The directions for the projects seem pretty distinct. It should be noted that some original vi are still installed by default when installing some OSs. The whole idea that a project needs to be in constant new-feature mode is just not reality. Just as one example: I'm still using the fluxbox desktop (about 25 years now), and it still meets my top level GUI needs for interacting with my workstation. I don't really _want_ it to change. I want the UI to be exactly the same after an update, so as not to disrupt my workflow.

wruza 2y ago
Yep. It's not that text editing changed much since <yearnumber>. And the more years passed, the less there is to "feature". Projects with constant new features after many years of development demonstrably don't know what they need and how to let themselves pause and reflect.
lenkite 2y ago
It is extremely likely that the default distribution of vimwill be neovim and not vim after a decade. Just like vim replaced vi, neovim will gradually replace vim. Being maintenance-mode software means only greybeards (and some stubborn holdouts) will stick to it over time and as greybeards retire, the new maintainers of linux distributions who are more familiar with neovim will make their choice.
- cess11 2y ago
  Vim and nvim are different and have different goals. One is for people that enjoy Lua, the other is vim.

wruza 2y ago

Or it will meet the issues all "new development" projects meet and live through its first crises. Cause having new features comes at a cost, and people eventually grow tired of costs they can't just throw money at.

menaerus 2y ago

I am a long-time vim user and haven't had time to watch neovim developments more closely. What would be the incentive to move to Neovim, e.g. what are its best-selling features that vim doesn't have? Genuine question.

juanrgar 2y ago
It's 'native' LSP for me. I have coc.nvim in Vim and it's great, but it depends on nodejs. Tree-sitter is another good one, although in my experience it might increase CPU usage noticeably.
- menaerus 2y ago
  I usually only have LSP for a single language so coc is not of much use for me. Syntax highlighting rendering engine in vim OTOH could use some speed improvements. I see it drowning sometimes on larger files with sematic syntax highlighting.
petepete 2y ago
For me it's Tree-sitter support. It builds a syntax tree for your files incredibly fast and allows the editor to use it for various things, including much better syntax highlighting. https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/ https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/