Thread

1. sdcfgy · 1790523505 · focus · HN ↗

   I've used vim since the first time it appeared in Debian repos. I have been told a thousand times that NeoVim is better, more modern and solves many (conveniently never cited) issues. I just ignored it and carried on. Feeling terribly vindicated at this point as it's a feature I use regularly and have no idea that it would be an issue in NeoVim.

   1. WesolyKubeczek · 1790523829 · focus · HN ↗

      I used neovim because it felt way faster by default. I think treesitter runs circles around what classic vim is using to highlight syntax. That said, I never used both beyond basics, thus no horror stories either.

      1. sdcfgy · 1790524012 · focus · HN ↗

         I haven't noticed any performance issues in vim to start with. It was fast on a 75MHz pentium for me. The syntax highlighting, same. No issues. I don't always use that though because I can't be bothered to set up anything much past the basic config.

         1. everforward · 1790525882 · focus · HN ↗

            At one point vim lacked asynchronous plugins. If a plugin was running a builder or linter it locked the editor up (from what I recall).

            That fell apart when people wanted vim to do some more modern IDE kind of things like all the “… on save” stuff (build on save, test, lint, etc). I think LSP support is native in neovim as well.

            I believe vim merged asynchronous plugin support a while back though, so I’m not sure how different they really are anymore.

            1. sdcfgy · 1790527392 · focus · HN ↗

               That seems like solving the wrong problem.

               Just run make from another terminal...

               1. loeg · 1790528036 · focus · HN ↗

                  It was a real problem, but as GP already mentioned, Vim has integrated some version of it since Vim 8 (2016), probably at least somewhat motivated by NeoVim (forked 2014).

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lwn.net&#x2F;Articles&#x2F;713114&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lwn.net&#x2F;Articles&#x2F;713114&#x2F;

                  1. sdcfgy · 1790529780 · focus · HN ↗

                     I hadn&#x27;t noticed.
         2. flohofwoe · 1790526234 · focus · HN ↗

            IIRC vim became really slow with the combination of large source files (thousands of lines of code) and language server plugins (e.g. code completion and live error squiggles).

            1. WesolyKubeczek · 1790527154 · focus · HN ↗

               I was using vim-enhanced as red hat-based distro installed it. No customization. No customization of nvim either.

               I often use vim or nvim on disposable machines, so persistent undo is something very low on my list of things I want.

            2. sdcfgy · 1790527336 · focus · HN ↗

               I had a C program that was a single file 140,000 lines long back then. No issues.

               1. kelnos · 1790548771 · focus · HN ↗

                  Ah yes, the &quot;I&#x27;ve never had this problem so obviously no one else could have possibly had it&quot; argument.

                  1. sdcfgy · 1790581351 · focus · HN ↗

                     No it&#x27;s more the &quot;what the hell are people doing to make their lives difficult?&quot; argument.
                  2. rmwaite · 1790601440 · focus · HN ↗

                     To be fair, they were just sharing their experience. I don’t recall them saying anything close to your interpretation.
               2. flohofwoe · 1790582768 · focus · HN ↗

                  Vanilla vim sure, no problem. But try to add syntax highlighting and code completion plugins.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.