From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com
[comp.lang.lisp removed from x-post]
On 31.05.2024 18:59, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 11:43:52 -0000 (UTC)
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>> In article , G wrote:
>>> In comp.editors Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 13:05:38 -0700, HenHanna wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Vim does fine with Python and Lisp (Scheme).
>>>>
>>>> The thing with Vim is, there are so many Vims, and Neovims, and Vis, and
>>>> Gvims, and what all to choose from. And they are all subtly different ...
>>>> and incompatible.
>>>
>>> I use Vim and I don't have any problem with the other that I don't use,
just
>>> choose one and use it. Besides the core commands are the same, the others
just
>>> add something but never change the base.
>>
>> Vim and GVIM are the same thing - just different looks.
>
> [...]
>
>> As usual, LDO's comments (quoted above) are nonsense.
>
> I second this. There is only 1 vim , 1 neovim , 1 vi .They are all examples
> of vi-like editors of which there are several.
These clones (and branches) is probably what LdO wanted to express?
(At least I interpreted it that way.) But it's anyway a non-issue,
IMO, since I second what G said. Actually most of the power of VIs
is due to the underlying design (and features) of the VI base (that
the clones support). But while I also tried or used some Vi clones
in the past (back in the 1990's?) I think most of them are nowadays
anyway obsolete. Personally I use the Vim/Gvim since decades now
and almost never[*] had any reason to switch, also because of its
design-wise coherent extensions of the VI base that Vim introduced.
Janis
[*] It was in a commercial Unix environment where there was only
a standard VI installed. (Still a lot better than anything else
available. And good that it's Unix standard; a reliably available
yet extremely powerful editor.)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
