VIM seemed to have fared well under the new leadership, despite not being able to control the timing of this power transfer. Maybe other BDFL projects would be inspired by VIM's experience and setup successors early.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life</a>
Many of the Vim nerds I know, including myself, have switched over to Neovim. Only when using a remote server with a default installation do I use regular old Vim.
> How can we make Vim9 script, the new Vim scripting language, more widely used?<p>One way is to inform users and prospective plugin writers that<p>1) Vim9 script is vastly superior to the old Vimscript, to the point where it is not unpleasant to use, and<p>2) it is much more conductive to writing text editor code than the general purpose Lua.<p>Of course this still does not mean that people will want to learn yet <i>another</i> scripting language to write Vim plugins in particular when they already know Lua, but it is very important to be adequately informed about the two above points.
The aggregate value of each soul that goes away is staggering. Bram is a good example; his work in VIM and his help to children in need will be sorely missed. I wish we were doing more to break that cycle.
I wonder how long vim and emacs can stay vibrant. I've used emacs in the last 20 years, so I stick with it, but new generations who are trained on vscode and such are less likely to use such "old fashioned" tools.<p>Surely, there will still be emacs and vim users 50 years from now, but the user numbers and the community power will diminish as the graybeards gradually leave this plane.
I had a easy to maintain, easy to understand vim + ALE + Gutentags + ... setup for C/C++ development and it worked very well but when I got into webdev I just gave up and jump to a neovim distribution as I was not able to catch up. So in the end neovim got me not because it is technically superior but because the community created distributions, which I am very grateful for (R.I.P Lunarvim)<p>EDIT: Ok, maybe the reason distributions were created is because the integration of some lsp/treesitter stuff enabled it/made it easier ? So if not technically superior, at least more capable
Tangentially related and as an Emacs user, I still see the editor as a platform that bends to my needs <a href="https://xenodium.com/a-platform-that-moulds-to-your-needs" rel="nofollow">https://xenodium.com/a-platform-that-moulds-to-your-needs</a>
>he started adding more potentially controversial changes, such as support for the XDG base directory specification<p>It feels like every single user-facing open source project needs to have its own XDG drama at some point.
<i>"DNS was also troublesome—the vim.org domain was managed by Stefan Zehl"</i><p>vim.org was created (probably around 1998) and has been owned by Sven Guckes for most of its existence. In the beginning Sven also managed the content but I think at some point Bram took over. Unfortunately Sven passed away not long before Bram.
Worth noting there are still elvis and the one true vi available, in case vim gets foobar'd, though I haven't checked their respective states now and last used either over ten years ago. Like with shells, I've always wondered why people are so quick to jump onto particular implementations when the value is in the wide availability of editors implementing vi key bindings, and the comfort of building up muscle memory this brings. Obviously, I couldn't care less about "plugins".
I'm glad I was introduced to NeoVim, because it led me to using Vim bindings in Zed.<p>As a new user to NeoVim, I was okay with investing some time, but man it feels like each update to NeoVim itself, or even the popular plugins, breaks something that I then need to go hunt down and fix. Every answer online isn't any better, pointing to 5 different doc pages. I like my IDEs to "just work" and continue to do so after I have them configured.