|
|
|
|
|
by krick
4289 days ago
|
|
Removing pretty powerful feature just because author of fork doesn't use it sounds… well, actually author of fork can remove whatever he likes, but presenting neovim like "refactord vim with more features" isn't fair or even plausible in this case. And for what reasons? Oh, I see, it makes code complicated. Did he think vim'c codebase is scary for no reason? Removing all the code from vim would be the ultimate simplification in that case. It's not popular feature? Well, I believe that there can still be more vim users that don't use macros, maybe remove them as well? Or maybe just replace vim with nano? I, personally, used ex-mode only a couple of times, so even if I will use neovim I don't think I would care. But that just doesn't sound like a right think to do. |
|
A huge part of good design is being able to make good (and often hard) decisions about when and where to simplify. This includes things like occasionally eliminating features. Ones that have shipped. For months, or even decades.
There are very solid arguments presented in that thread for interactive Ex-mode's removal. Specifically, one problem that @tarruda mentions is that ex-mode is one of the blockers for "implementing GUIs over msgpack API." Seriously, I'd trade ex-mode for that in a heartbeat!
[1] http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/intro.html#Ex-mode