Thread

1. dlisboa · 1790522895 · focus · HN ↗

   > the attitude that just because something is a persistent file on your filesystem that contains data that you might want is no reason for their program not to delete it meant they had no concept of a duty of care to their users.

   That's the wrong way to look at it. NeoVIM has a different concept of care for their users. They're optimizing for another kind of care, more in line with modern expectations, which VIM did not care about (hence the fork).

   It's not better or worse, just different.

   This same article could've been written about how VIM has no native LSP integration or autocomplete and they don't have duty or care for their users.

   1. pdonis · 1790523038 · focus · HN ↗

      Deleting important data without warning is not the same as not providing a feature users might want.

      1. luma · 1790525196 · focus · HN ↗

         There is a flip side to this - is vim encrypting this data it keeps forever? If I delete something I consider sensitive, I might unwittingly be recording that presumed-deleted piece of data to my user profile somewhere to be deleted never.

         1. nikanj · 1790527460 · focus · HN ↗

            How could you possibly encrypt it in a way that holds water? Any attacker who cares enough to get your undo file can also get your undo keys, unless you want to wire a whole system of undo-now-requires-password-auth-with-MFA

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.