Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rane 5033 days ago
pathogen
1 comments

Vundle's better.
Not sure why you've been downvoted.

I agree with your vundle suggestion. I migrated from pathogen to vundle and would recommend that people using the former check out vundle again. Even if it's from the 'wrong author' (aka not from tpope).

The only difference I'm aware of (I haven't looked into it much) is that Vundle downloads plugins too, rather than just install them, but it's a pretty big difference when you're looking for a plugin manager.
It's huge because it lets me manage my plugins in source control much more easily than juggling submodules in git or whatnot. Instead I just have my plugins as lines in my vimrc.
> Not sure why you've been downvoted.

Just stating "X is better" without giving any reason is not particularly helpful.

Agreed, but he replied to a single word comment (=> worse)
but this single word was a very valid reply to the parents question. without needing any explanation.
pathogen requires you to roll your own submodule thingy. This is certainly feasible if you know git well, but vundle is still easier
Not sure where you got that idea: I use pathogen without involving Git at all.
OK, then you have some kind of shell script to do the downloads, or you do them all manually each time. These are not better alternatives
it does when you want to have your vim configuration in git. and vundle might be easier then (not, that using git submodules is so extremly hard).
Yeah, all I need is a vimrc when I have vundle. I sync it using Dropbox and run BundleInstall on any of my new computers and I'm good to go with all the plugins.
Does Vundle allow you to just unzip plugins that aren't hosted anywhere into their own subdirectory somewhere inside your ~/.vim/ like Pathogen does?

This isn't clear from it's webpage.

I'd like to know this too.
As far as I know, it does. However, I'm not sure.