I'm a senior software engineer with a pretty uncommon skill set. Recruiters are the primary way that companies hire in my industry outside of networking contacts and I get contacted frequently. The job before my current one was through a recruiter.
I very much dislike Microsoft and LinkedIn in general, but not using it all is a huge handicap that isn't worth taking on.
Nah, it's all hyped up bullshit that has to be babysat and manipulated to a degree that you may as well just write your damn code.
But beyond that, I'd argue that it's actually damaging for engineering organizations, because it means the org is incurring the maintenance cost of code not written by its engineers and that has no real thought put behind it. Maybe you can eventually coax it to produce code that's not completely broken shit, but it's code that your org doesn't actually "own" from a maintenance and knowledge-base perspective. The social aspect of code maintenance with this shit is always massively overlooked.
It's how recruiters find me, so unfortunately I can't. I almost never open it, though.
I use a different tool, visidata. It's especially nice when used as a psql pager.
A text editor isn't the right tool for editing tabular data, imo.
As for KaTeX, what I would do is have a preview process running outside of vim that watches for changes in source files and re-renders. That's the Unix way of doing things.
There's many very basic features of vim that VsVim does not have (like... almost all command line commands), basic features which regular vim users use all the time.
You seem to think that people using vim emulation is the norm and using vim itself is the exception and unusual... Which is very much not the case. The opposite is true, with VsVim users being a minority. It's relatively novel among vscode users (most just use a mouse and maybe a small handful of built-in shortcuts), whereas vim itself is quite ubiquitous in the Unix world, with many Linux machines even providing it as the default editor. I know many vim and emacs users (including lots that I work with), and maybe 1 VsVim user (honestly not even sure if they do).
And I was expanding on my original comment, which was not replying to you, so there you have it.
It's speed, but it's also flow and a continuous stream of thought. If all your editing is being done with muscle memory and minimal thought, you can continue thinking about the problem at hand rather than interrupting your thoughts process to fumble through some context menu to make a change.
Yeah it sounds like you're trying to mock me but it mostly just comes across as confusing. Maybe it's just sarcasm? Hard to tell.
Anyway, it's pretty well-known in the vim community that VSVim is pretty lackluster vim emulation. There are much better examples of vim emulation out there, such as evil for emacs.
It honestly has nothing to do with being a "power user". It's simply false to claim that vscode has more features than vim (which is what the parent comment was claiming), and this should be evident to anyone with more than the most basic, surface-level understanding of vim (more than vimtutor, basically). Vim is a lot more than HJKL and ciw.
I'm not annoyed with VsVim really since I honestly don't really think about it as it's not all that relevant. I do find it a bit irksome when people make false or misleading claims about vim from a place of ignorance about what it actually is.
It's a strange phenomenon with vim in particular, where many people are exposed to it at their periphery, read some reductive claim about it online, and parrot said claim all over the place as though it were fact. Perhaps the nature of being a tool that most are exposed to but few actually learn.
I made this mistake for ages because Haskell is so popular and it's functional and pure, but it's not actually a requirement for functional languages to be pure. OCaml isn't.
I didn't say that FP languages have to necessarily be pure, just that FP languages tackle the problem of mutation by arranging programs such that most things are typically pure and side effects typically happen at the periphery (logging is probably the one exception, though). This is true even in FP languages that allow arbitrary side effects in functions, it's just not enforced by a compiler.
I agree Rust code has a different feel to OCaml code but that's because it makes some things easier (e.g. mutation, vectors). You still could write Rust as if it was OCaml (except for the lack of currying), it's just that nobody does that because it sucks.
That's the entire point, though. It's all about what the language emphasizes and makes easy to do. If it's unnatural to write a functional program in Rust and no one does it, then it's not really reasonable to call it a functional language. Writing functional programs is not idiomatic Rust, and that's okay.
Fundamentally it's a language oriented around blocks of statements rather than composition of expressions. Additionally, it takes a different approach to the mutation problem than FP languages: where FP seeks to make most things pure and push mutation and side effects to the edges of the program, Rust uses its type system to make such mutation and side effects more sane. It's an entirely different philosophy when it comes to programming. I don't think either approach is necessarily better, mind you, just a different set of tradeoffs.
I'm a professional Haskell developer and am very much immersed in FP. When I read Rust code, I have to completely shift my thinking to something much more imperative. Whereas if I read, say, Ocaml, the difference is mostly syntactic. This isn't a slight, mind you. I quite like Rust. But it's a very different paradigm.
Obviously there's a small handful of things that would require a reboot, but unlike Windows, the vast majority of programs in user space don't require reboots on update.
There's also the fact that restarting Windows to update is a much slower and more disruptive experience than restarting Linux.
Vim's command line, i.e, commands starting with
:. The vanishingly few it does support are, again, only the most basic, surface-level commands (and some commands aren't even related to their vim counterparts, like:cwindow, which doesn't open the quick fix list since the extension doesn't support that feature).The last commit to the supported features doc was 5 years ago, so no, it isn't. Seriously, you can't possibly look at that doc and tell me that encompasses even 20% of vim's features. Where's the quick fix list? The location list? The args list? The change list? The jump list? Buffers? Vim-style window management (including vim's tabs)? Tags? Autocommands (no, what it has does not count)? Ftplugins?
ins-completion? The undo tree? Where's:edit,:find,:read [!], and:write !?:cdo,:argdo,:bufdo,:windo?Compared to what vim can do, it is absolutely a joke.