[shazow]

Neovim was largely responsible for pushing vim to add many of these features like async[0]. If anyone wants to donate towards this kind of pressure, there are links here: https://neovim.io/ [Edit/disclaimer: I have donated in the past.]

Neovim is like the Chrome of the web. A great editor, but also a great forcing function for the ecosystem.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12481084

[hackuser]

> Neovim was largely responsible for pushing vim

Did Bram Moolenaar tell you that? Otherwise, none of us know what motivated him.

Neovim fans seem to hijack Vim discussions frequently. Sometimes people want to talk about Vim.

[shazow]

> Did Bram Moolenaar tell you that? Otherwise, none of us know what motivated him.

I don't think this is a subjective matter? The sequence of events was:

1. async feature was proposed in 2014 and earlier, Bram was opposed to the idea in general

2. neovim was created to integrate async and other improvements

3. lots of plugins started supporting neovim's async

4. vim comes out with its own async feature

You're welcome to ask Bram what motivates him personally, but I'm comfortable with my judgement of causality to the ecosystem as a whole.

> Neovim fans seem to hijack Vim discussions frequently. Sometimes people want to talk about Vim.

You may talk about vim, that's fine. Do you feel neovim is off-topic for vim discussions? It seems fairly related to me.

[flukus]

> 1. async feature was proposed in 2014 and earlier, Bram was opposed to the idea in general

Not accepting a patch without question doesn't mean he was opposed to the idea.

[executesorder66]

I'm linking this[0] post, not to talk about why/if neovim is better than vim, but rather because it gives a nice overview of why that patch was rejected, and why neovim was started.

[0]http://geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-v...

[flukus]

Look at the linked mailing list thread. It wasn't rejected, there were several adjustments for coding conventions, naming, etc and the last thing Bram mentioned was basically "we'll consider it".

Then the developer threw a hissy fit a few days later and created a fork because his patch wasn't accepted right away.

[VarFarYonder]

> Then the developer threw a hissy fit a few days later and created a fork because his patch wasn't accepted right away.

According to the Geoff Greer, they didn't fork Vim. The fork happened a couple of months after their patch wasn't accepted, and they joined: "A couple of months after my disillusionment with Vim, Thiago de Arruda submitted a similar patch. It was likewise rejected. But unlike me, Thiago didn’t give up. He started NeoVim and created a Bountysource for it." http://geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-v...

[brazzledazzle]

I remember when that went down and I was sympathetic. It was a shit show and a total waste of their time. I would have been angry enough to start a competing project too.

[cobby]

He didn't accept several patches, did he?

[leshow]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- this is a logical fallacy

[tanderson92]

This would be a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy:

1. async feature proposed and implemented in neovim

2. vim comes out with its own async feature.

shazow's post has significantly more evidence of neovim's responsibility, enough that it isn't a fallacious argument. It isn't definitive proof, either.