This is kind of funny to me. If you want a modern, non-C vim then Helix makes sense as a base—but I won’t think this kind of fork is sustainable as an extension of the original thing: either it fully fork into it’s own editor to avoid constant manual merging, or it will die off because of that constant manual merging.
The “scheme bad” stance does it more harm than good, in my estimation, but maybe the overlap of “hates scheme” and “wants Helix to just be vim” is less narrow than I expect
I think eventually Helix will be powerful enough to have a plugin that makes it a vim replacement for those that want it (and yes, this will probably be a reality once the Scheme plugin system comes). But until then, it is nice to have this fork, because while I still prefer my Neovim setup, sometimes I need a text editor that doesn’t have all my plugins and it is more minimalist, but still is powerful enough for quick code editing (e.g.: when I mess my Neovim configuration and now I can’t use Neovim to fix it).
yea I would not be surprised to see evil for Helix implemented as a plug-in. I’ve definitely reached for Helix to do quick fixes when I’ve broken my emacs/nvim config as well (though I’m now trying it as a daily driver in anticipation of full plug-in support)
This is interesting. I briefly tried Helix, and loved every second of it, but since I often have to use regular Vim on servers and such, the mental switch was too big.
Just give me plain Helix, but with Vim bindings, and I would be sold. (I’m also not opposed to Scheme plugins, like the author, that sounds dope!)
I feel this and went through the same experience. Luckily, I found that 95% of the time, my modal editing happens on my personal / work machine, or a server I control (and can install helix on). So I stuck it and learned the Helix bindings, as I had fallen in love with the editor, and now use it almost exclusively. I revert to vi / vim on the few machines I interact with that don’t or can’t have helix installed.
And amazingly, I’ve managed to store and compartmentalize both sets of key bindings. Usually, in vim, I go to select something the Helix way and it (obviously) doesn’t work. And my mind goes “Oh, yeah!” and I’ll then have no problem using vim bindings for the duration of the session.
I’m not trying to convince you to do the same, but felt this was a good opportunity to share my own experience.
This is kind of funny to me. If you want a modern, non-C vim then Helix makes sense as a base—but I won’t think this kind of fork is sustainable as an extension of the original thing: either it fully fork into it’s own editor to avoid constant manual merging, or it will die off because of that constant manual merging.
The “scheme bad” stance does it more harm than good, in my estimation, but maybe the overlap of “hates scheme” and “wants Helix to just be vim” is less narrow than I expect
The “scheme bad” stance made me laugh out loud when the author said Rust was more readable…
I think eventually Helix will be powerful enough to have a plugin that makes it a vim replacement for those that want it (and yes, this will probably be a reality once the Scheme plugin system comes). But until then, it is nice to have this fork, because while I still prefer my Neovim setup, sometimes I need a text editor that doesn’t have all my plugins and it is more minimalist, but still is powerful enough for quick code editing (e.g.: when I mess my Neovim configuration and now I can’t use Neovim to fix it).
yea I would not be surprised to see evil for Helix implemented as a plug-in. I’ve definitely reached for Helix to do quick fixes when I’ve broken my emacs/nvim config as well (though I’m now trying it as a daily driver in anticipation of full plug-in support)
“Rust is easier to read than Scheme” is certainly a take
This is interesting. I briefly tried Helix, and loved every second of it, but since I often have to use regular Vim on servers and such, the mental switch was too big.
Just give me plain Helix, but with Vim bindings, and I would be sold. (I’m also not opposed to Scheme plugins, like the author, that sounds dope!)
I feel this and went through the same experience. Luckily, I found that 95% of the time, my modal editing happens on my personal / work machine, or a server I control (and can install helix on). So I stuck it and learned the Helix bindings, as I had fallen in love with the editor, and now use it almost exclusively. I revert to vi / vim on the few machines I interact with that don’t or can’t have helix installed.
And amazingly, I’ve managed to store and compartmentalize both sets of key bindings. Usually, in vim, I go to select something the Helix way and it (obviously) doesn’t work. And my mind goes “Oh, yeah!” and I’ll then have no problem using vim bindings for the duration of the session.
I’m not trying to convince you to do the same, but felt this was a good opportunity to share my own experience.
Have you tried https://github.com/LGUG2Z/helix-vim/?
Very interesting, thanks for the tip!
Also, that README
I gave Helix a try but the missing support of ed commands (
:s/a/b/g) was a showstopper for me.