![]() # team, and may not be under a free licence. # review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu # Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the I have used the program net-select-apt to chose the fastest mirror for me. But as far as I understand mush is well ahead in many respects.This is an example sources.list file. (x) Well, there is notmuchmail, which I suppose is somewhat similar. I suppose one could use another scripting language to extend Vim, such as Python - but my impression is that the focus is a little (note not a lot) different between Emacs and Vim wrt. That is more what I meant - I use Vim as "just" an editor.Īlso looking at the code for support in Vim and Emacs - I would definitively prefer extending Emacs - and I don't even like Lisp much. I've not come across anyone advocating something along the lines of mush or gnus for vim(x) though. Well, pastie might be one of the few "advanced" plugins I've considered using (the only one I've actually used is limp). Considering that you are vowing vim allegiance, I think tpope's plugins would have made it pretty obvious how extensible vim is. > Apart from async(which Vim can't do), Vim is as extensible as Emacs in letter and spirit. Oh, you don't know Vimscript and you find it difficult to read? Tell me more about how every language in existence should read easy to you(not directed towards you general comment) I prefer it vastly over learning a new set of artificial api calls("normal! `y" over some crappily named copy_marks.). You directly use the vim commands(is there a better word for it?). In fact, if you know Vim, you don't have to learn tons of api functions(though you still need to learn some). I don't deny the warts(= vs =# vs =?), but I do deny the fact that somehow Vimscript makes the job difficult. Generally, when I take a position defending Vimscript is when the person talking about "how vimscript is devil's spawn" has 0 ideas about Vimscript and is regurgitating what he read somewhere. Your extensions look good - I will play with it some. I don't have a fanatical position - I use both Coffee and JS. Some people swear by Coffee and disavow JS some people prefer JS. Vimscript has its warts(like JS) but does its job. Your classes are nice syntactic sugar, but I am used to Lua and JS plain old object based oop, and I am Ok with using OOP that way. I like the default scope thing your language does, but I feel a developer should at least know vimscript variable scopes. = has the same rules as = in JS - don't, unless you are really sure. Despite that, there are people who would still work on dicts rather than using the Ruby style classes your script seems to introduce. Coffeescript attempts to add syntactic(and sometimes semantic) sugar to JS. ![]() ![]() The reason JS exists is to script the browser, and vimscript exists to script vim. Both have lot of pitfalls, and don't have traditional OOP. I've even written a language that compiles to Vimscript because it sucks so bad. Although you might not want to debate whether Vimscript is better or worse than elisp, I don't mind.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |