5 ms·

I personally use Vim but I like Emacs as well. They are both great. But they are getting old and it shows. Compare them to the super nice text rendering of ST3.

by ed0 12y ago

I personally use Vim but I like Emacs as well. They are both great. But they are getting old and it shows. Compare them to the super nice text rendering of ST3. I understand one cannot use ST3 from the terminal but that's fine. I can continue to use vim in that case. But 99% of my time is spent in graphical environment and I want a modern editor with nice font rendering and all. But still, IMHO Vim and Emacs are better text editors than ST3. Why can't we have best of both worlds? Implement core vim functionality as a backend service and provide a modern frontend with nice rendering (by using Skia for example). Same goes for Emacs. It's time to move on but keep the best of Vim and Emacs.

rasur 12y ago
I get your point but fwiw Emacs in a modern mac terminal is not completely horrible to look at.
edwintorok 12y ago
How does ST3's rendering compare to GVim? You can select a different font for GVim, I personally prefer Source Code Pro for example.
- hrvbr 12y ago
  It depends on the quality of your screen. On my previous laptop I had a high-quality WLED screen and ST3 looked clearly better than everything else on Windows. On my current cheap laptop however, everything looks quite pixelated anyways and I actually prefer the rendering of gVim or Notepad++.
- ed0 12y ago
  GVim is not that bad to be honest, but in my experience ST3 is still better. It's not just the font rendering. The whole UI experience in GVim is lacking compared to ST3. ST3 has been designed for the modern UI environment and Vim and Emacs haven't. That's the point.
  - edwintorok 12y ago
    Can you point me to an article with more details on this? I use my text editor mainly from the keyboard, I very rarely use the mouse (it would be a lot slower), so the only reason to use GVim (vs a terminal Vim) would be font rendering / color themes. Does the UI experience you refer to primarily to mouse use, or something else?
    - Shorel 12y ago
      The mouse would be a lot slower for some users, not all of them. I always hear that argument and my own experience makes me strongly disagree. So, let's make an hypothetical example: In your own comment I need to select the text "would be font rendering". Using the mouse it took me all of one second to select it, and send it to the clipboard. May be a bit less, because I used to play Starcraft and I know my way around with a mouse. I can look at some point in the screen, and have the mouse there in less time it would take me to count the number of words from my current cursor to the desired position. Now it's your turn. Tell me how I can use the keyboard for exactly the same task and be faster. Disclaimer: this is a real mouse and not the thing that laptops use. I can imagine a touchpad being slower.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        There's the time switching from keyboard to mouse. The mouse is the enemy of fast typing.
      - edwintorok 12y ago
        In Vim I would do something like this: /fo<RET>vweobby /fo <RET> I use search to get me close to where I want to be v I enter visual mode, I want to see what I'm selecting we I select the words 'font rendering' o I realize I want to extend my selection to the left bb select 'would be to the left' y yank the selected text I didn't need to count anything and the in-progress selection was visible the whole time allowing me to make adjustments to it. If you don't know all the Vim motion keys yet and don't like counting then you could also do it like this that requires very minimal Vim knowledge: /fo<RET><C-left><C-left>v<C-right><C-right><C-right><C-right><left>y How would you extend the selection to the left with the mouse without loosing the already existing selection?
pmoriarty 12y ago
I don't use Sublime Text, so I don't really understand what's so great about its text rendering. But.. how great can it be? Both vim and emacs (and the terminals they run in) can use the fonts that your operating system has available on them. So what's the problem? And how is that inferior to what you get in Sublime Text 3? Genuinely curious. Second, while a nice look is great and all, I'm more interested in sheer power, not eye candy. I guess I'm more of a function over form guy, and both vim and emacs could look a lot worse than they do now and I'd still prefer them over virtually any other text editor out there. If there's something that other text editors can do that makes them more powerful than vim or emacs, I'd love to hear about it. That's happened in the past. Sometimes there's been some feature that they don't have. And usually, not much later, vim and emacs both clone that feature.. absorb and expand, and move on.
- ed0 12y ago
  I am not too familiar with the technical details regarding the text rendering in ST3, but I can clearly see the difference between ST3 and Vim/GVim. At least on the machines I use (Desktop Archlinux & MBP OSX). Apparently ST3 uses Skia2d[1] for rendering which is what Google Chrome uses as well. Even for the text. But again, it's not just about the text rendering. ST3 is designed for the modern GUI and Vim/Emacs are not. What I want to see is the raw power of Vim + nice modern UI rendering/feel. It can't be that hard. [1] - http://www.sublimetext.com/3dev http://www.sublimetext.com/3dev (search for Skia)
  - JonnieCache 12y ago
    I imagine when neovim is ready we'll see frontends for it with all the optimised subpixel rendering you could ask for.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    It would be helpful if you could precisely describe exactly what it is that makes ST3 look better for you than emacs or vim. Saying that "I can clearly see the difference" and calling it a "nice modern UI rendering/feel" is too vague to be useful for improving emacs or vim in any concrete direction.
tazjin 12y ago
I'm not a ST3 user, so I'm curious in which way it renders fonts differently than other applications (and on which platforms)? Emacs and Chromium are the applications that I spend most of my time at the computer in, and both of those go through the same font-rendering system (Infinality patched freetype) and look very nice. I also use standalone Emacs frames and almost never run it from a terminal. Edit: I installed Sublime and took a comparison screenshot with the same font, however slightly different font weight and theme: http://i.imgur.com/UqwM0j2.png http://i.imgur.com/UqwM0j2.png
- craigching 12y ago
  What font is that in the emacs screenshot?
  - abrowne 12y ago
    Looks like Source Code Pro http://adobe-fonts.github.io/source-code-pro/ http://adobe-fonts.github.io/source-code-pro/
  - tazjin 12y ago
    As abrowne correctly identified, the font (in both applications actually) is Source Code Pro. I've been using that font since it was released and am very happy with it, same goes for the colour scheme: Gruber Dark
gmcabrita 12y ago
I don't notice any font rendering differences from ST3 to Emacs with my setups [1]. [1] - http://a.pomf.se/ytaujl.png http://a.pomf.se/ytaujl.png
- morekozhambu 12y ago
  I see that you use ubuntu. What version, theme are you using?
  - gmcabrita 12y ago
    I'm running 14.04 LTS. The theme is a modified version of Zukiwi-mac that has the new Yosemite buttons [1]. [1] - https://github.com/gmcabrita/dotfiles/tree/master/.themes/Zukiwi-mac https://github.com/gmcabrita/dotfiles/tree/master/.themes/Zu...
chrisguilbeau 12y ago
I no longer use ST due to being in the terminal most of the time, but one thing I miss is how easy it was to write new packages with Python. Just enough of the API was documented and exposed to get what you needed done and usually resulted in a plugin with pretty good performance. It took very little time to write things I missed from emacs like "sort paragraphs", opening files by typing a path, an auto complete that uses a similar algorithm. Even a ctags module that I wound up prefering over emacs. I think ST's extensibility is easier than just about any other editor I've used (I do develop primarily in Python though)
ufo 12y ago
I heard that the Vim architecture makes it hard to implement Vim as a backend service and that changing that was one of the big goals of the Neovim fork. Well have to wait and see how that works out in the long run...
quotemstr 12y ago
I sometimes contribute to Emacs. On X11, we use XFT to render text. On Windows, we use Uniscribe. I suppose we could be using DirectWrite instead, but Uniscribe produces pretty good results. What specific improvements would you like to see in Emacs text rendering? What is Skia doing that these very common system text rendering interfaces are not?

by ed0 12y ago

rasur 12y ago

I get your point but fwiw Emacs in a modern mac terminal is not completely horrible to look at.

edwintorok 12y ago

How does ST3's rendering compare to GVim? You can select a different font for GVim, I personally prefer Source Code Pro for example.

hrvbr 12y ago
It depends on the quality of your screen. On my previous laptop I had a high-quality WLED screen and ST3 looked clearly better than everything else on Windows. On my current cheap laptop however, everything looks quite pixelated anyways and I actually prefer the rendering of gVim or Notepad++.
ed0 12y ago
GVim is not that bad to be honest, but in my experience ST3 is still better. It's not just the font rendering. The whole UI experience in GVim is lacking compared to ST3. ST3 has been designed for the modern UI environment and Vim and Emacs haven't. That's the point.
- edwintorok 12y ago
  Can you point me to an article with more details on this? I use my text editor mainly from the keyboard, I very rarely use the mouse (it would be a lot slower), so the only reason to use GVim (vs a terminal Vim) would be font rendering / color themes. Does the UI experience you refer to primarily to mouse use, or something else?
  - Shorel 12y ago
    The mouse would be a lot slower for some users, not all of them. I always hear that argument and my own experience makes me strongly disagree. So, let's make an hypothetical example: In your own comment I need to select the text "would be font rendering". Using the mouse it took me all of one second to select it, and send it to the clipboard. May be a bit less, because I used to play Starcraft and I know my way around with a mouse. I can look at some point in the screen, and have the mouse there in less time it would take me to count the number of words from my current cursor to the desired position. Now it's your turn. Tell me how I can use the keyboard for exactly the same task and be faster. Disclaimer: this is a real mouse and not the thing that laptops use. I can imagine a touchpad being slower.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      There's the time switching from keyboard to mouse. The mouse is the enemy of fast typing.
    - edwintorok 12y ago
      In Vim I would do something like this: /fo<RET>vweobby /fo <RET> I use search to get me close to where I want to be v I enter visual mode, I want to see what I'm selecting we I select the words 'font rendering' o I realize I want to extend my selection to the left bb select 'would be to the left' y yank the selected text I didn't need to count anything and the in-progress selection was visible the whole time allowing me to make adjustments to it. If you don't know all the Vim motion keys yet and don't like counting then you could also do it like this that requires very minimal Vim knowledge: /fo<RET><C-left><C-left>v<C-right><C-right><C-right><C-right><left>y How would you extend the selection to the left with the mouse without loosing the already existing selection?

pmoriarty 12y ago

I don't use Sublime Text, so I don't really understand what's so great about its text rendering. But.. how great can it be? Both vim and emacs (and the terminals they run in) can use the fonts that your operating system has available on them. So what's the problem? And how is that inferior to what you get in Sublime Text 3? Genuinely curious. Second, while a nice look is great and all, I'm more interested in sheer power, not eye candy. I guess I'm more of a function over form guy, and both vim and emacs could look a lot worse than they do now and I'd still prefer them over virtually any other text editor out there. If there's something that other text editors can do that makes them more powerful than vim or emacs, I'd love to hear about it. That's happened in the past. Sometimes there's been some feature that they don't have. And usually, not much later, vim and emacs both clone that feature.. absorb and expand, and move on.

ed0 12y ago
I am not too familiar with the technical details regarding the text rendering in ST3, but I can clearly see the difference between ST3 and Vim/GVim. At least on the machines I use (Desktop Archlinux & MBP OSX). Apparently ST3 uses Skia2d[1] for rendering which is what Google Chrome uses as well. Even for the text. But again, it's not just about the text rendering. ST3 is designed for the modern GUI and Vim/Emacs are not. What I want to see is the raw power of Vim + nice modern UI rendering/feel. It can't be that hard. [1] - http://www.sublimetext.com/3dev http://www.sublimetext.com/3dev (search for Skia)
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  I imagine when neovim is ready we'll see frontends for it with all the optimised subpixel rendering you could ask for.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  It would be helpful if you could precisely describe exactly what it is that makes ST3 look better for you than emacs or vim. Saying that "I can clearly see the difference" and calling it a "nice modern UI rendering/feel" is too vague to be useful for improving emacs or vim in any concrete direction.

tazjin 12y ago

I'm not a ST3 user, so I'm curious in which way it renders fonts differently than other applications (and on which platforms)? Emacs and Chromium are the applications that I spend most of my time at the computer in, and both of those go through the same font-rendering system (Infinality patched freetype) and look very nice. I also use standalone Emacs frames and almost never run it from a terminal. Edit: I installed Sublime and took a comparison screenshot with the same font, however slightly different font weight and theme: http://i.imgur.com/UqwM0j2.png http://i.imgur.com/UqwM0j2.png

craigching 12y ago
What font is that in the emacs screenshot?
- abrowne 12y ago
  Looks like Source Code Pro http://adobe-fonts.github.io/source-code-pro/ http://adobe-fonts.github.io/source-code-pro/
- tazjin 12y ago
  As abrowne correctly identified, the font (in both applications actually) is Source Code Pro. I've been using that font since it was released and am very happy with it, same goes for the colour scheme: Gruber Dark

gmcabrita 12y ago

I don't notice any font rendering differences from ST3 to Emacs with my setups [1]. [1] - http://a.pomf.se/ytaujl.png http://a.pomf.se/ytaujl.png

morekozhambu 12y ago
I see that you use ubuntu. What version, theme are you using?
- gmcabrita 12y ago
  I'm running 14.04 LTS. The theme is a modified version of Zukiwi-mac that has the new Yosemite buttons [1]. [1] - https://github.com/gmcabrita/dotfiles/tree/master/.themes/Zukiwi-mac https://github.com/gmcabrita/dotfiles/tree/master/.themes/Zu...

chrisguilbeau 12y ago

I no longer use ST due to being in the terminal most of the time, but one thing I miss is how easy it was to write new packages with Python. Just enough of the API was documented and exposed to get what you needed done and usually resulted in a plugin with pretty good performance. It took very little time to write things I missed from emacs like "sort paragraphs", opening files by typing a path, an auto complete that uses a similar algorithm. Even a ctags module that I wound up prefering over emacs. I think ST's extensibility is easier than just about any other editor I've used (I do develop primarily in Python though)

ufo 12y ago

I heard that the Vim architecture makes it hard to implement Vim as a backend service and that changing that was one of the big goals of the Neovim fork. Well have to wait and see how that works out in the long run...

quotemstr 12y ago

I sometimes contribute to Emacs. On X11, we use XFT to render text. On Windows, we use Uniscribe. I suppose we could be using DirectWrite instead, but Uniscribe produces pretty good results. What specific improvements would you like to see in Emacs text rendering? What is Skia doing that these very common system text rendering interfaces are not?