|
|
|
|
|
by sipior
3755 days ago
|
|
Most of the claims from neovim seem over the top and off from factual i.e. vim base code is so bad it is unreliable. To be fair, the one example you give is from a person not directly (to my knowledge) associated with the neovim fork. There was more than a bit of discontent, I think, at the slow rate of progress Vim was making compared to more modern options. I've been using Vim about as long as you have, and I have to say that I welcome the options neovim brings to my favourite editor. I suppose it's impossible to have any fork of such a well-worn, fundamental piece of software without some feeling the need to be partisan. I have to say, though, that Mr Arruda has regularly conducted himself with a great deal of courtesy and professionalism, at least in every instance I have seen. I'm quite happy to be throwing his team a few bucks every month. |
|
https://github.com/neovim/neovim/wiki/Introduction#motivatio...
Here was Bram Moolenaar (Vim foudner/Maintainer) The guy didn't take money for the job but asked people to donate money to African Orphans and they do a fundraiser to cut the man off?
"It's going to be an awful lot of work, with the result that not all systems will be supported, new bugs introduced and what's the gain for the end user exactly?
Total refactoring is not a solution. It's much better to improve what we have. Perhaps with some small refactorings specifically aimed at making Vim work better for users." https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/vim_dev/x0BF9Y0Uby...