this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
31 points (94.3% liked)

Programming

17487 readers
116 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I would like to premise this with the following:

  • The best approach is probably just testing out each and every editor that interests me until I've found what works best for me.
    • However, I wonder to what degree a test as such would be representative when the likes of Emacs and (Neo)Vim are considered; both of which are known for being a life time learning process.
  • I don't literally expect Emacs or (Neo)Vim to be drop-in replacements for any IDE. Some of the most basic IDE-functions are absent by default and some (perhaps more advanced) functionality might simply not be attainable at all.
  • I am not interested in anything that remotely resembles a flame war. The community at Lemmy has so far been very kind to me; let's keep it that way 😜.

Motivation

I've had experiences with Atom, VS Code and some of Jetbrains' IDEs like Pycharm and Rider. While I've been generally content with all of them, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth whenever I'm forced to switch IDEs because their lifetimes and/or lack of extensibility doesn't allow me to responsibly continue using them. As such, I'm interested in a long time investment that will grow as I will. Both Emacs and (Neo)Vim have passed the test of time and I honestly don't think they'll cease to exist in the upcoming decades, that's why I would love to start using either one of them.

Furthermore, Vi(m) keybindings seem to be somewhat ubiquitous and almost any IDE offers some support. As such, improving my Vi(m)-game should only net-positive my productivity (at least eventually). Also, fluency will benefit me whenever I'm remote accessing any random server as they will always have Vi(m) installed. Thankfully, this doesn't force me to use Vi(m) (or Neovim) just yet, because Emacs offers with Evil perhaps the single best Vi(m) implementation; outside of native Vi(m)*.

My setup:

  • I'm on a custom image of uBlue using their startingpoint as template. For those unaware; an oversimplification would be that it is Fedora Silverblue with some extras.
  • As such, I would like to have my developer environments local and have used Distrobox to that extent using steps similar to the ones outlined over here. But I'm not married to that specific way of utilizing local containers. So please feel free to recommend me something that's at least as good.
  • If I go for Emacs, then I will definitely rely on Evil.
  • If possible, I would like to use it for C#, Python and Rust. Furthermore, I engage in editing Bash scripts, Dockerfiles, Linux config files, texts written in Latex and/or Markdown and other files written in Nix or JSON. As both are very extensible, I don't expect any issues, but I might be wrong.

Questions:

  • First of all, does it make sense for me to only consider these two?
  • Can the split between Vim and Neovim be interpreted as the first schism and as such be a forebode for what's yet to come?
  • Google Trends suggests that Neo(Vim) is ever-popular. On the other hand; not only is Emacs relatively less popular, but its popularity seems to be slightly declining. Should this worry me regarding their long-time future? Especially considering that a thriving community is literally the lifeline for both of them.
  • For those that have used both extensively, which one do you prefer (if any) and why?
  • While I understand that the power of both of them lies primarily in how one can literally make them behave however suits their workflow best. Therefore, the use of premade configs and/or starter kits/distributions should (ideally) only be used either temporary or as a starting point. However, at this point, they provide a decent showcase of what each 'platform' has to offer. So:
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tatterdemalion 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Helix is great. And it's written in Rust so I feel pretty comfortable working in the codebase. The maintainers are friendly. I think it will eventually leave other modal terminal editors in the dust, considering rate of development.

It has shortcomings from being young, but they are rapidly disappearing. The philosophy of being mostly "batteries included" is so refreshing compared to the configuration hell of NeoVim.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And it’s written in Rust so I feel pretty comfortable working in the codebase.

Rust, indeed, is a big plus.

It has shortcomings from being young, but they are rapidly disappearing. The philosophy of being mostly “batteries included” is so refreshing compared to the configuration hell of NeoVim.

While its shortcomings might eventually be ironed out. Do you expect it to be as ubiquitous as Vi(m) has become? If not, do you expect Helix to improve its Vim implementation or rather become so popular that it can rival Vi(m) in being 'ever-present'?

[–] tatterdemalion 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you expect it to be as ubiquitous as Vi(m) has become?

I honestly believe that Helix will eclipse NeoVim because it's designed better, the source code is more maintainable, and the philosophy is a bit more balanced and welcoming to users that care more about productivity than customizability. Refactoring Vim's spaghetti C code is a massive task, and C as a language drags it down. Where the NeoVim ecosystem is currently fractured among many Lua "distributions," Helix just builds on itself in one source tree. I think starting with a solid core before supporting plugins will be good for the future of Helix.

do you expect Helix to improve its Vim implementation

I'm not sure what you mean. The Helix key combos are similar but not the same as Vim, they are closer to Kakoune. Once Helix has plugins, it might be possible to get something closer to true Vim emulation.

rival Vi(m) in being ‘ever-present’

Yea I think Helix is here to stay, and it will continue stealing market share from other terminal editors. It probably won't convert anyone that's already invested years in learning and configuring (Neo)Vim, but for newcomers looking for a powerful option with sane defaults, Helix is far easier to get started with.

Personally, I learned Vim at a workplace where most others used Vim. This was at a time when NeoVim was just gaining traction, so I wasn't familiar with it. Vanilla Vim didn't quite compete with VSCode for my workflows, so I worked with VSCode for a while before trying NeoVim. I found the NeoVim setup obtuse. Helix saved me all of that effort, and I was almost immediately productive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I honestly believe that Helix will eclipse NeoVim because it’s designed better, the source code is more maintainable, and the philosophy is a bit more balanced and welcoming to users that care more about productivity than customizability. Refactoring Vim’s spaghetti C code is a massive task, and C as a language drags it down. Where the NeoVim ecosystem is currently fractured among many Lua “distributions,” Helix just builds on itself in one source tree. I think starting with a solid core before supporting plugins will be good for the future of Helix.

Perhaps I should have done a better job at formulating the question. Btw, this writing is cool. Thank you for that. I also believe it contains some excellent pointers regarding topics I should read into. However, my question was more related to the following: As you know; it doesn't matter whichever IDE I'm using, there's definitely a plugin (or perhaps even built-in functionality) that allows me to utilize my Vi(m)-acquired skills to improve my productivity on any given IDE. Do you think that Helix' keybindings (I believe they're at least to some degree inspired by Kakoune) will be similarly found either built-in or as a plugin on whichever random IDE you might come across?

Once Helix has plugins, it might be possible to get something closer to true Vim emulation.

This is the answer I was seeking. Makes sense.

Yea I think Helix is here to stay, and it will continue stealing market share from other terminal editors. It probably won’t convert anyone that’s already invested years in learning and configuring (Neo)Vim, but for newcomers looking for a powerful option with sane defaults, Helix is far easier to get started with.

Perhaps I should have done (yet again) a better job at explaining what I meant. As you know; it doesn't matter if I'm on some random Linux distro or on macOS, I'm sure that Vi(m) is installed by default and I can rely on it. Same applies to some random remote device I'm accessing; if anything, I can expect that my Vi(m)-acquired skills will be of good use. Do you think that Helix or some of the functionality it offers (from its keybindings to anything (really)) will somehow be beneficial to me in some remote accessed device or any other similar setting?

Of course, all of these questions stem from the fact that -if possible- I want usage of my IDE to be beneficial to how I engage with my text editor and vice versa. Otherwise, these questions don't make any sense at all. Perhaps, I should instead reconsider if this is important in the first place. Currently, I'm at least naive enough to believe that it's worth pursuing. But feel free to convince me otherwise 😉!

For completeness' sake, Helix has definitely peaked my interest. I will look into it and see how I might benefit from it (if at all). Thank you.