4 ms·
That's a very good way to put it. Vim's editing model is much more functional (a la functional programming) than Emacs', whereas the latter's foundation is muc
by greggyb 12y ago
That's a very good way to put it.
Vim's editing model is much more functional (a la functional programming) than Emacs', whereas the latter's foundation is much more functional.
I keep thinking I should try Emacs with one of the Vim-ulators, but I've got a pretty good flow going in Vim and I've got a lot of other things I'm trying to learn right now, not to mention paying work to do.
- agumonkey 12y agoMe too, since many people report emacs evil mode being pretty polished by now, I'm tempted to try a fresh emacs setup. There's also lispy.el, which is IIUC a paredit superset in vi-command-clothing.
- tuhdo 12y agoIt's not for Vim anymore but can adapt to many editing styles.
- mikekchar 12y agoAlthough me too comments are not encouraged on HN, I've got to add a "Me too" to your "Me too". I used Emacs for 20 years and on a whim decided to learn Vim. Once I got the hang of it (telling the editor what I want to do rather than moving the cursor all over the place), I couldn't go back to Emacs. I've tried Evil a couple of times a few years ago and it just didn't work for anything other than superficial commands. The reports I'm reading in this thread are making me very, very excited to try it again!
- agumonkey 12y agoWho knows, with the functional trends, and the work on guile emacs, maybe there will be a window for an emacs sibling with simpler core and combinator-like interactions. vi objects feels a lot like lazy partial application with sane defaults: effect <| (move or stay) <| (count or 1)