From: *@eli.users.panix.com   
      
   In comp.editors, Janis Papanagnou   wrote:   
   > On 07.03.2024 23:58, Eli the Bearded wrote:   
   >> Some people find vim does too much. I find I need to carefully pare back   
   >> some default configurations in vim to make it "sane" for me. With   
   >> settings like "scrolloff" set, I find it actually interferes with my   
   >> editing most of the time. But there are rare cases when I do want want   
   >> that. The same holds for syntax highlighting.   
   > It's unclear to me what you mean by "too much". I'm aware that Vim   
   > has a lot of new features but if I start it without changes I seem   
   > to get a behavior like Vi; the only difference I recall is the 'u'   
   > behavior to undo a single change (and toggle) in Vi, and to have   
   > multiple undo-levels in Vim (that I certainly don't want to miss).   
      
   The shipped plugins slow down startup time and sometimes in the name of   
   friendliness do things I don't want. Automatic decompression of files   
   with a .gz suffix for example, which produces noisy error messages if a   
   file has a .gz suffix but isn't a gzip file. These sorts of things   
   matter to me because I'm more prone to have odd suffixes on files.   
      
   > I can't say anything WRT the 'scrolloff' setting; its default value   
   > is '0' on my system and that's how I recall Vi to behave. (I don't   
   > recall that Vi had such an option in the first place, but my memory   
   > on that setting detail is faint.)   
      
   The vim online help is very detailed including differences from vi.   
      
   'scrolloff' 'so'	number	(default 0, set to 5 in |defaults.vim|)   
   			global or local to window |global-local|   
   ...   
   	NOTE: This option is set to 0 when 'compatible' is set.   
      
   Among other things that makes my use of vi(m) special is frequent use,   
   mostly just as a file reader or edit without saving interactive viewer,   
   is using it on a lot of systems with no user config files leaving me   
   prone to compiled in / distro defaults. (Hence, say, my familiarity with   
   busybox vi on Alpine.)   
      
   >> The default vi on Slackware has been elvis probably since the first   
   >> version of that distro. People who have been using that since forever   
   >> likely find vim quirky.   
   > I recall to have used Elvis decades ago for only a short period of   
   > time. Have you an example for the "quirky feeling"?   
      
   Delete (backspace) works differently. It has default settings that do   
   not redisplay the line as you delete. The -o commandline option is   
   hugely different in ways that can be destructive to files.   
      
   > wondering about it; was it so different from _Vi_? And given that I   
   > read in the Wikipedia that _Vim_ was influenced by it I'd expected   
   > that even adopted non-Vi features would have similarities then.)   
      
   Vim worked hard to become more vi-compatible (albeit hidden behind   
   ":set compatible") between versions 3 and 7.   
      
   > Myself I consider the basic power of the Vi concept/philosophy already   
   > as the primary incentive to use Vi. One difference on my part is that   
   > over time I had constantly used more and more features of Vim   
   > (and Vi).   
   > Yet still only a fraction of what Vim provides.   
      
   I like many features of vim that are not in vi, but I am good at   
   adapting to the features available and not overly reliant on the new.   
      
   Elijah   
   ------   
   composed this reply in elvis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)