4 ms·

> Vim is as extensible as Emacs in letter and spirit. without knowing Emacs how could you claim that. Actually Emacs comes with smtp written in elisp[1] and I

• irahul 14y ago
  > without knowing Emacs how could you claim that. Where did I say I don't know emacs? I don't know what is emacs's mail support implemented in doesn't mean I don't know emacs. > Actually Emacs comes with smtp written in elisp[1] I said: "If it doesn't, I am in complete awe - not by the extensibility but by the pointlessness of implementing smtp server in elisp." Implementing a smtp lib that talks to a smtp server is different from implementing a smtp server. > IMHO Emacs is more customizable than Vim. I have used Vim and Emacs for considerable length of time. I ended up choosing Vim and use it as my main editor. I have read source for many plugins in both Vim and Emacs. Vim is as extensible as Emacs. I won't debate how elisp is better or worse than Vimscript, because that doesn't affect extensibility.
  • kindahero 14y ago
    > Vim is as extensible as Emacs. I won't debate how elisp is better or worse than Vimscript, because that doesn't affect extensibility. If we agree with "extensibility depends on how much/many internals exposed to its extensible language", I would say Emacs is more extensible than Vim in comparison to their current status. Agian It doesn't mean Emacs is better or worse than Vim. I think we are heading to endless discussion. I will stop here.
  • lukegru 14y ago
    Although you might not want to debate whether Vimscript is better or worse than elisp, I don't mind. Most things are better than Vimscript. I've even written a language [1] that compiles to Vimscript because it sucks so bad. [1] https://github.com/luke-gru/riml https://github.com/luke-gru/riml
    • irahul 14y ago
      > Although you might not want to debate whether Vimscript is better or worse than elisp, I don't mind. Most things are better than Vimscript. I've even written a language [1] that compiles to Vimscript because it sucks so bad. Vimscript is similar to JS. Both have lot of pitfalls, and don't have traditional OOP. The reason JS exists is to script the browser, and vimscript exists to script vim. Coffeescript attempts to add syntactic(and sometimes semantic) sugar to JS. Riml seems to be in similar vain. Despite that, there are people who would still work on dicts rather than using the Ruby style classes your script seems to introduce. == has the same rules as == in JS - don't, unless you are really sure. I like the default scope thing your language does, but I feel a developer should at least know vimscript variable scopes. Your classes are nice syntactic sugar, but I am used to Lua and JS plain old object based oop, and I am Ok with using OOP that way. Vimscript has its warts(like JS) but does its job. Some people swear by Coffee and disavow JS; some people prefer JS. I don't have a fanatical position - I use both Coffee and JS. Your extensions look good - I will play with it some. Generally, when I take a position defending Vimscript is when the person talking about "how vimscript is devil's spawn" has 0 ideas about Vimscript and is regurgitating what he read somewhere. I don't deny the warts(== vs ==# vs ==?), but I do deny the fact that somehow Vimscript makes the job difficult. In fact, if you know Vim, you don't have to learn tons of api functions(though you still need to learn some). You directly use the vim commands(is there a better word for it?). I prefer it vastly over learning a new set of artificial api calls("normal! `<v`>y" over some crappily named copy_marks....). Oh, you don't know Vimscript and you find it difficult to read? Tell me more about how every language in existence should read easy to you(not directed towards you; general comment)