1. 34

  2. 12

    I appreciate the article but feel the porn analogy undermines its effectiveness.

    1. 2

      Unless I’m misreading the article, it’s just irrelevant for the most part, isn’t it? It (questionably) claims that most people immediately start hyper-configuring vim, and calls style or personal values “porn”, without quite explaining it, but not returning to it either.

      Ultimately, it seems like more of an attention-grabber than a significant idea.

      1. 1

        There were a few people who seemed to take the article in a very different way, for example thinking that it advocates for the remaps shown in the second section. I got some “yeah! I too remap Y” comments.

      2. 2

        I don’t.

      3. 6

        So, after all the trouble, do I have regrets about deleting my thousand line creation? No. The simple truth was that, no matter how much energy I invested in my custom configuration, the people who built and designed Vim knew it a lot better than me.

        As a person who’s used Vim for almost ten years now, I strongly disagree with this. Vim’s design is often not because of some secret knowledge but because they had practical constraints and legacy issues. We use hjkl because the original vi terminal didn’t have arrow keys. U is the “line undo” because it’s a legacy holdover from vi, which did not have an undo history. Y is yy instead of y$ because it predates yy. In fact, Vim recommends you remap Y:

        If you like “Y” to work from the cursor to the end of line (which is more logical, but not Vi-compatible) use “:map Y y$”. (source)

        Vim is vi is ex is ed is qed.

        (Disclosure: my vimrc is 500 lines and I love it. I’ve reconfigured everything from the statusline to the behavior of j and k and have tons of functions I use regulary.)

        1. 3

          Nice article and the theme has echoes in other places (lifting idioms from one language you know well onto another you don’t comes to mind).

          “ make Y consistent with C and D.

          If I were going to go Procrustean here, I think I’d rather throw C and D on the Y rack.

          1. 1

            I’d rather throw C and D on the Y rack.

            Did you know that Vim comes with built-in yy, cc and dd commands, which work linewise, the same as the built-in Y and your proposed redefinitions of C and D?

            Assuming that cc, dd, and yy are about as easy to type as C, D, and Y (they are for me), I see no reason to limit one’s options by making multiple key sequences do the same thing. I use both dd and D at times, so I’m glad I have access to them both.

            1. 1

              Note the qualification that begins my sentence…

              That said, dd is not analogous to cc0D is, and I do use that sometimes. I also use C and D though.

              My point was just that you can achieve consistency in multiple ways, and the tradeoff is between usability and mnemonics/cognitive load. It’s ok if things are inconsistent if there’s a reason for them to be… I took that as one of the points of the article.

          2. 3

            I wonder if similar process will ever happen to my huge Kakoune config (currently ~600 LOC excluding plugins)…