Re:Bram Moolenaar Discusses Developing Vim, How He Uses It, ...
by andylei on Thursday December 22, 2016 @11:58AM
(#13238529)
> The more momentum a project has, the more contributions it gets
that's not disputed. the question is, what specific impacts do these contributions have on me, the user? why should i, a user of vim, switch to neovim?
Re:Bram Moolenaar Discusses Developing Vim, How He Uses It, ...
by philix001 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:11PM
(#13239117)
async plugins? true color support? If you have a 32-bit color capable terminal you can use any colorscheme and get real RGB colors.
Re:Bram Moolenaar Discusses Developing Vim, How He Uses It, ...
by mbel on Thursday December 22, 2016 @02:14PM
(#13239554)
Those are very good and appealing features. Nobody questions that. On the contrary, the point is that those features are meaningful and valuable for the users. The amount of code and people used to implement them is not.
It's not like Neovim (or any open source project) is an open house where anyone can come, throw some code over the wall and get it merged. Like any big project (Vim included), it is being maintained by a set of core responsible developers who know better. Neovim has a huge focus on automated tests and CI also. I don't see any reason why a big contributor base should make the end product worse.
> I just don't see any logic in your argument. You speak about loosely defined "health" and "momentum" as if there was a clear link between software quality and amount of buzz around the project.
Of course there is. Look at Linux, ReactJS, Docker, Kubernetes, Ubuntu, Firefox. The more momentum a project has, the more contributions it gets. Open source projects succeed because of the community around them.
GNU Hurd was not able to gather momentum and look where it is today. Contributors flocked to Linux so it flourished.