The State of Vim

Re:The State of Vim by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Saturday January 11, 2025 @12:37PM (#42667440)

On Linux, I can compile a static vim 4.6 (1997 mar 13) with size of 514K

If I compile static vim 9.1 (2024 jan 02) I get size of 3.7M

When I compile a static nvi, I get a size of 575K. And the resulting binary segfaults

On NetBSD I use nvi but for Linux I am using vim 4.6

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Vim by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Saturday January 11, 2025 @06:59PM (#42669977)

Small and fast

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Vim by clemens3 on Sunday January 12, 2025 @02:40PM (#42676219)

I got nvi for Linux build and working using the patched source code from Debian for nvi version 1.81.6-17-debian. It is 39768 bytes on my amd64 machine (I don't remember if I used some extra flags to make it smaller).

I replaced vim for the vi binary with nvi in my Linux From Scratch fork, thought vim is still left. Yes, my vim is similar in size to yours, good idea for an upgr... - down shift!

http://techinvest.li/tfs/tfs-11.7.html#ch-system-nvi

http://techinvest.li/tfs/ftp/nvi-1.81.6-17-debian.tar.xz SHA256 sum: c146c70e8e954e62d9c26d5319ceb813c2ea316e21d8363ad159c3dbf889f2ec

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Vim by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Monday January 13, 2025 @09:21PM (#42692692)

https://sources.debian.org/data/main/n/nvi/1.81.6-17/debian/...

No doubt it's possible to produce a working static nvi binary for Linux.

The point I was making is that vim requires zero patching. It just works. Even a version from 1997.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The State of Vim by clemens3 on Friday January 17, 2025 @11:59AM (#42740293)

You are correct, I ignored the "static" point. My nvi size was dynamically linked. I want to learn static builds, even thought my distro of choice LFS is not very forthcoming in this respect.

[ Parent | on HN ]