[neoden]

The main difference between Vim and Helix is that Helix is not hackable at all. Its configuration allows only very basic settings. It is impossible to change almost anything in its behaviour. So it focuses on being good out of the box. Whether it succeeds or not is for everyone to judge for themselves.

[jayflux]

I think Helix have gone the right way around with their priorities. They've started by making the right things built-in that most developers would need on a day-to-day basis. It's already better than configuring vim/neovim in that regard as it just works out of the box. An example is having Tree-Sitter and LSP already configured, so you get the best syntax highlighting available, and IDE-like functionality.

The customizability/hackability will come later, they're working on extension support plus other stuff, but I think for most of their users, this isn't the number 1 priority.

I guess their target users are those who just want to get up and running on a modal editor without spending too much time in Lua or trying to get plugins setup.

[seanw444]

I think they went the right way too, and I say that as someone who mains heavily-configured Emacs. I like installing Helix in a fresh environment by just bringing the .exe and being able to get right to work with all the features I need.

[diggan]

Seems at least extensability is on the mind of the Helix team:

> There’s two prototypes we’re exploring that could potentially exist side by side: a typed list/ML-like implementation for scripting and a Rust based interface for things that require performance. Could potentially run both in wasm but I’m personally a bit unhappy with how big wasm implementations are, easily several orders of magnitude compared to the editor

https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/wiki/FAQ#how-to-write-...

So they're not avoiding making it extensible on purpose, seems they haven't found the right way to do it yet.

[bobbyskelton41]

https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/pull/8675