4 ms·

Not that crazy. Vim itself is a reboot of Vi, and there were/are other minimal Vi clones that are very small (couple of KLOCs). You'd be throwing away the horri

by recuter 13y ago

Not that crazy. Vim itself is a reboot of Vi, and there were/are other minimal Vi clones that are very small (couple of KLOCs). You'd be throwing away the horrible Vimscript, and sadly the community is married to it. As a result your neat little Vim2 reboot thing will not be nearly as useful for a long time, so you've lost backwards compatibility for what? Cleaner internals? Doesn't really benefit the end user much. :)

lightblade 13y ago
I really don't care much about backward compatibility with existing plugins. We're using vim not the plugins anyway. I justed wanted an terminal editor with vi bindings.
- eyko 13y ago
  As long as it can parse my .vimrc (but then, that's vimscript)
  - platz 13y ago
    Is there so much in your .vimrc that it couldn't be written in a new syntax, without that much effort? We're not talking about supporting an entire legacy software app here.
icambron 13y ago
Not every potential Vim user already uses it. So right, you couldn't pry Vimscript out of the hands of diehard users, but you might get a big crowd of people who aren't otherwise willing to take on Vim in the first place.