3 ms·

> That's a funny thing, because VIM appeared in 1993 and only really became what it is now around 2006. Whatever you did deprecate, it was not VIM. I identifie

by lutusp 14y ago

> That's a funny thing, because VIM appeared in 1993 and only really became what it is now around 2006. Whatever you did deprecate, it was not VIM. I identified my subject very clearly. Are you really unaware that vim derives from vi, and contains the same core code and strategy? That a discussion of vim is a discussion of vi? But let's allow Google to decide this for us: Search for "vi/vim" : "About 482,000 results" ... Q.E.D. > On the other hand, please stop bashing modes ... You won't get far with this as an argument. All modern editors bash modes by not having them (the sincerest form of unflattery). Not one editor written since 1980 has used modes (except vim, of course), because they're an idea whose purpose has vanished. > and stop including VIM in your rants. Vim is vi brought back to life -- old wine in a new bottle.

klibertp 14y ago
VIM is the de facto vi on many platforms, I suppose that this is the reason for your search results. I agree that VIM derives from vi, it's obvious - my point, however, is that the additions and improvements and changes in VIM are many times larger (in terms of code and "user facing surface" like commands) than the core itself; and that essentially creates a new, separate product. Take MS DOS and MS Windows 95 as an example - IIRC Win95 still ran under DOS, yet it exposed completely new APIs and model of user interaction. Would you say that discussing Win95 means discussing DOS? Would you say that Win95 is the same as DOS? As for modes - I didn't want to get into this - you seem to be convinced that having modes is a bad thing. Your argument is that "every other editor is modeless" - and it's false. The truth is that almost every modern, serious editor includes vi emulation mode and hence can work in a modal fashion - from Visual Studio to PyCharm to SublimeText all of them have an option to have modes. So your argument is simply wrong. Is modal editing objectively worse thing? I don't believe so. I think that, while introducing some overhead for simple commands (one additional key press for changing modes) it significantly simplifies complex things, because you don't need modifiers and chaining commands is easier. As for VIM being vi brought back to life - see Win95 argument above.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > and that essentially creates a new, separate product. New, yes, separate, no. Vim has the same modes, the same handicaps, as its predecessor. > As for modes - I didn't want to get into this ... (long discussion of modes) This reminds me of a famous and very funny monologue in "Five Easy Pieces" in which a woman talks endlessly about some truly boring topic, punctuated with "But I don't want to talk about it" over and over again. It's priceless. > Your argument is that "every other editor is modeless" - and it's false. It's true. Apart from the occasional editor that ridicules vi by including a vi emulation mode, just as a comic riff for modern programmers who aren't aware how bad things were and how far they've come ... > The truth is that almost every modern, serious editor includes vi emulation mode ... ah, so that's what you were talking about. Obviously an editor that includes a vi emulator mode can't be accused of requiring what vi requires. Or don't you see that? > So your argument is simply wrong. Hospitals are equipped with wheelchairs and crutches -- does this mean that's their goal? No, it means they realize something may go very wrong and they want to be prepared. The reason for vi emulation mode is to accommodate people who are beyond meaningful retraining. Have you heard that you can't teach a dead dog new tricks? What I find shocking is that new programmers will start learning vi/vim without realizing how primitive it is by modern standards. This thread can only perpetuate the fantasy that vi/vim is anything but a way to avoid abandoning older programmers and their skill set entirely. > Would you say that Win95 is the same as DOS? Does it still require drive letters? There's your answer -- drive letters stand for (but doesn't exhaust) all the things that are wrong with Windows. By the same token, requiring mode switches stands for all the things that are wrong with vi/vim.

by lutusp 14y ago

klibertp 14y ago

VIM is the de facto vi on many platforms, I suppose that this is the reason for your search results. I agree that VIM derives from vi, it's obvious - my point, however, is that the additions and improvements and changes in VIM are many times larger (in terms of code and "user facing surface" like commands) than the core itself; and that essentially creates a new, separate product. Take MS DOS and MS Windows 95 as an example - IIRC Win95 still ran under DOS, yet it exposed completely new APIs and model of user interaction. Would you say that discussing Win95 means discussing DOS? Would you say that Win95 is the same as DOS? As for modes - I didn't want to get into this - you seem to be convinced that having modes is a bad thing. Your argument is that "every other editor is modeless" - and it's false. The truth is that almost every modern, serious editor includes vi emulation mode and hence can work in a modal fashion - from Visual Studio to PyCharm to SublimeText all of them have an option to have modes. So your argument is simply wrong. Is modal editing objectively worse thing? I don't believe so. I think that, while introducing some overhead for simple commands (one additional key press for changing modes) it significantly simplifies complex things, because you don't need modifiers and chaining commands is easier. As for VIM being vi brought back to life - see Win95 argument above.

lutusp 14y ago
> and that essentially creates a new, separate product. New, yes, separate, no. Vim has the same modes, the same handicaps, as its predecessor. > As for modes - I didn't want to get into this ... (long discussion of modes) This reminds me of a famous and very funny monologue in "Five Easy Pieces" in which a woman talks endlessly about some truly boring topic, punctuated with "But I don't want to talk about it" over and over again. It's priceless. > Your argument is that "every other editor is modeless" - and it's false. It's true. Apart from the occasional editor that ridicules vi by including a vi emulation mode, just as a comic riff for modern programmers who aren't aware how bad things were and how far they've come ... > The truth is that almost every modern, serious editor includes vi emulation mode ... ah, so that's what you were talking about. Obviously an editor that includes a vi emulator mode can't be accused of requiring what vi requires. Or don't you see that? > So your argument is simply wrong. Hospitals are equipped with wheelchairs and crutches -- does this mean that's their goal? No, it means they realize something may go very wrong and they want to be prepared. The reason for vi emulation mode is to accommodate people who are beyond meaningful retraining. Have you heard that you can't teach a dead dog new tricks? What I find shocking is that new programmers will start learning vi/vim without realizing how primitive it is by modern standards. This thread can only perpetuate the fantasy that vi/vim is anything but a way to avoid abandoning older programmers and their skill set entirely. > Would you say that Win95 is the same as DOS? Does it still require drive letters? There's your answer -- drive letters stand for (but doesn't exhaust) all the things that are wrong with Windows. By the same token, requiring mode switches stands for all the things that are wrong with vi/vim.