[ftaghn]

I would not be so prompt to compare the situation with Apple and Jobs. Apple is a company that provides something no one else does while also holding a lock on its users. You can't go and install iOS apps on android.

On the other hand, vim and neovim are almost the same thing, and wherever they diverge, it is always to the detriment of vim. I would not be very optimistic for the future of vim considering that nobody uses vim9script and that alone is quite the massive baggage to maintain, an entirely separate, new programming language? one that is used by.. no one? 99% of extension developers either use the old vimscript or lua, and neovim's lua base has significantly grown to the point where we can imagine a future that has no vimscript.

Where will they find people willing to continue working on vim's code base when it has this kind of really big, really useless baggage? and if they were to cut it out of the code base, would it still be vim? I respect Bram for his contribution to open source, and vim is one of my favorite, most used software, but his decisions in the past few years have been extremely poor and were not friendly toward the possibility of vim being community maintained.

[Dobbs]

> On the other hand, vim and neovim are almost the same thing, and wherever they diverge, it is always to the detriment of vim.

They are quite different at this point and personally I prefer vim over neovim. I've never gotten NeoVim to work satisfactorily. I've had issues with the async setup where the backend and frontend start having issues with each other or lag. So on. Personally I find vim to be a lot simpler to work with and MacVim in particular to just be a perfect GUI for me.

Of course YMMV. The point being is that there are a many of us that prefer normal Vim over the NeoVim work. That's okay. Its also okay that others prefer NeoVim over Vim. There is nothing wrong with that. What there is something wrong with is the way that many NeoVim people are reacting to this.

[JetSetIlly]

You've hit the nail on the head for me. From my point of view, vim is simpler than neovim. I value that and wouldn't like to see neovim subsume it (although I'm sure people are happy with neovim for very good reasons)

[em-bee]

Where will they find people willing to continue working on vim's code base

the same place where neovim found its developers. if one group of people can organize themselves to maintain and develop their version of vim. so can another. i don't know how many contributors vim has, but i am sure they can figure out how to move forward. finding new leadership can be difficult when there is no clear candidate, but if the contributors had not wanted to work on vim they would not have been there in the first place.

[coldtea]

>i don't know how many contributors vim has, but i am sure they can figure out how to move forward.

Bram, for 98% of the commits/lines, plus some statistical noise.

[em-bee]

i didn't realize that. given this and what others say about how bram treated contributions, i'd think it's best to put the original vim into maintenance mode and keep it as the version that bram intended. there is no need for another group of developers to emerge if it wasn't already there when they most likely would just end up repeating what neovim already did, since none of them would be a replacement to do things the "bram" way, especially considering that bram apparently was reimplementing many neovim features anyways.

it feels to me that not changing vim would be what bram would have wanted. any new developments may as well happen in neovim.

of course anyone who disagrees or doesn't like where neovim is heading may fork vim and make their own version of it.