Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vim 7 Released

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the time-to-get-your-upgrade-on dept.

665

houseofmore writes "After many years of development, Bram Moolenaar, creator of Vim, today announced version 7 of the widely used editor. New features included spell checking in up to 50 languages, intelligent completion, tab pages, extended undo branches and much more. Downloads available here for Unix, Windows, Mac and more."

cancel ×

665 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

waiting (4, Funny)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286238)

I'm waiting for the emacs emulation mode. (kidding, kidding)

Re:waiting (4, Funny)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286298)

M-x shell<enter> vim<enter>

Creating a macro is left as an exercise to the reader.
^X^S
dammit

Re:waiting (1)

Daytona955i (448665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286612)

I think he meant an emulation mode in terms of vi emulating emacs.

However, there are easier ways to emulate vi in emacs, namely viper [uwinnipeg.ca] .

Re:waiting (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286367)

I'm waiting for the emacs emulation mode

Vim now runs on more than 15 [vim.org] different operating systems, so I'm sure emacs can't be far behind.

Re:waiting (0, Redundant)

wik (10258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286490)

Are you kidding? Emacs IS its own operating system.

Re:waiting (3, Funny)

VE3MTM (635378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286594)

And this, folks, is the sound of a joke going right over someone's head... *WHOOSH*

Re:waiting (3, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286441)

I've never understood the attraction of Vim, maybe someone could explain. It seems like a throwback to keyboard command line editors with it's modal editing.

For my needs I either want a nice gui, in which case I will use kwrite, or bbedit, or some IDE.
or I want something simple from the commandline, in which case pico is almost useful, though I prefer emacs for that. I am not an emacs power user. All I can do is do primive searches, cut and paste. But that's really all I need for quick command line edits.

The other reason I like emacs and it's non-modal behaviour is that on a mac, those simple key bindings are available in every cocoa test window.

So why is Vim so popular?

Re:waiting (2, Insightful)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286523)

I find it easier to remember keyword shortcuts in Vim's way. Honestly, ctrl-random-char just doesnt cut it for me. Esc for command mode, and then one key. Thats all it takes. Works better with strange terminal emulations too.

Re:waiting (4, Informative)

Nos. (179609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286527)

Once you've learned vim, it becomes probably the fastest editor to use. Never having to use the mouse. Being able to quickly move around a document. Complex (regex) searching/replacing. It has a steep learning curve, but it a very powerful and arguably intuitive editor. I first started using it in the mid-90s when I first got onto the big unix boxes at the university I attended. Since then, I continually find myself trying to use vim syntax in different editors. Its not uncommon to see ZZ or :wq at the end of some of my emails or other documents.

Re:waiting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286528)

It's all about the ePenis, son. If you have a small ePenis you need to be a Real Man. The problem is that no self-respecting Geek with a big ePenis would use something that's actually easy to use! To be a real Geek you have to memorise three thousands different cryptic and totally arbitary single character commands. How can you have any self respect if you don't know what ^:s/foo/bar/ does, or that ^:d5 deletes five lines.

Now, do you want to be a real Geek with a big ePenis, or do you want to actually get stuff done?!?!

Re:waiting (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286670)

This is the funniest post I've read on here in over a year.

But I won't be surprised if it gets modded to troll pretty quickly because someone with mod points can't deal with the point the joke makes because he's scared people will realize it's true about him.

Re:waiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286562)

lrn2ply nub.

Re:waiting (4, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286574)

It's popular because it's like vi with some extensions to make it more modern.

It's especially handy for editing source code. Where you have commands to reformat comments, move between functions, jump to definitions and things like that. I'd rather hit [[ to go to the top of the previous function than have to enter a search for it. This is especially useful when you're going through all your callback routines and adding a little bit of code to them.

The ability to have multiple cut/paste buffers is also nice. The modal behavior makes people think Vi is a throwback, but honestly only a handful of editors are able to provide even 90% of Vi's editing features. And none (not even emacs) can do it with so few keystrokes (that does make the learning curve on Vi rather steep).

The disadvantage to such an effecient input system is when the cat jumps on your keyboard, you can have hours of work erased in Vi.

ps- I have vi-like bindings in my Cocoa windows. you can actually change how the input works and plug in something else. Or you can just tweak it to use Ctrl-vi key without even using a plugin by editing DefaultKeyBinding.dict. The emacs bindings that are there by default are pretty weak anyways.

Re:waiting (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286593)

Because it's small and it's fast and lots of us have used it so long the commands are hardwired into our nervous system.

Re:waiting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286595)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

text editors edit text so why do you need a GUI?

It's kindof like the Windows vs. UNIX argument. However, once you go UNIX, you never go back.

Re:waiting (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286623)

Because you can't do really, really powerful text editing with anything else, except emacs.

Vim Tips [rayninfo.co.uk] .

Re:waiting (1)

conJunk (779958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286653)

I've never understood the attraction of Vim, maybe someone could explain.

okay, i haven't read the other comments to you yet, but for me it's like this: vim is *not* my editor of choice for most things, but when i'm ssh'd into my webservers, it's the easiest, simplest way to make minor tweaks... vi .htaccess, type type type, :w :q, done and done

it's simple and straightforward, which is all i need for tweaking .conf files and similar tasks

Re:waiting (5, Informative)

Tack (4642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286661)

I've never understood the attraction of Vim, maybe someone could explain. It seems like a throwback to keyboard command line editors with it's modal editing.
A lot of it, I'll admit, is habit. My brain is tightly wired to vim's keyboard shortcuts (some of which are quite obscure) to the point where thinking about some action in vim is roughly equivalent to that action actually happening. I've also become accustomed to vim's slightly more esoteric features. Would other editors do the same job and be less obscure about it? Quite probably. But the truth is that vim works for me, I've already overcome the steep learning curve, and there's really very little incentive to use something else.

Now, if I were to start fresh, would I still choose vim? I think the answer is a resounding "probably." Here are some reasons why:

  • vi is ubiquitous, and vim is pretty common itself. vim is usually available, and when it's not (on older unixes say) I can still apply what I know to vi to get my job done. Obviously for those who aren't sysadmin types who only use one unix, this isn't much of an argument.
  • vim is text-mode; I can shell in and use it remotely just the same as using it locally. Obviously there is a trade-off here, and any text-based editor (joe, nano, etc.) have the same advantage. But it's why I don't use gedit.
  • vim is agile and powerful. I never have to reach for a mouse (or rather, I can't reach for the mouse) so you get quite proficient at common operations. vim has features like syntax highlighting and folding that I like for coding. Any modern programmer-oriented editor does this too, but vim does it all while being fast.

vi[m]'s ubiquity I think is its strongest argument. Other editors exist to satisfy the other requirements, and some of them might even do it in less obscure ways. But if you're the type who needs to bounce around on different systems running different unixes, vi is always just there. And once you become proficient enough, you're really not strongly inclined to use anything else.

Re:waiting (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286679)

The thing that most people don't realize about VI(M), is that it works very well when using things like telnet to edit your files. There are many characters like ctrl, alt, home, and such that don't travel well over telnet. Having a program like VI(M) is great when you're accessing from a remote system, and can only use the keyboard.

Re:waiting for GVIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286641)

I don't know about anyone else that uses Vim on Windows but I'll be waiting for GVIM version 7 so that I can upgrade. This is truly one of the best script editors I have worked with.

frosty (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286239)

frosty piss

Nope, you lose... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286261)

No, this is Frosty Piss... [slashdot.org]

Long ago (0, Troll)

BenHoltz (909754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286247)

I remember the first days of learning VIM.... Glad to see it progressing.

Re:Long ago (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286369)

I'm just learning it now. Kvim, that is - part of the suite of stuff you get with Suse. Perhaps you can tell me how to get it to stop randomly resizing the window when I'm trying to read text with it? I'm a newbie to Linux, but it shouldn't be doing that, should it?

Re:Long ago (1)

BenHoltz (909754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286684)

rm -rf * while logged in as root. j/k

syntax highlighting! (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286251)

I, for one, welcome our upgraded syntax highlighting overlords. I can't remember the last time I wrote syntactically incorrect code since I switched from vi. Of course, I can still write BAD code, or silly code, but vim catches my typos every time.

What's that odor ? (2, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286279)

This thread smells the troll, don't you think ? :)

Re:What's that odor ? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286323)

No, that's just the smell of voodoo carrying over from the Wii article...

Re:What's that odor ? (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286630)

Smells like a troll?

I dunno, maybe that's appropriate, since Vim [unilever.ca] is what I use to clean my toilet...

Vim 7 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286293)

:%s/vim 6.4/vim 7/
:wq

This alone is worth it... (4, Funny)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286294)

Intelligent completion for C, HTML, Ruby, Python, PHP, etc.

Yup, this one alone is worth it. Need to write some code? Forget your IDE and just use the C "autoprogram" feature of the new Vi. This message was composed with :set autorespond .

But seriously.... (1)

DG (989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286572)

But seriously, how does this work?

DG

Ahhhhh.... (1)

DG (989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286650)

I managed to find out some of this myself.

This is kinda cool: define a function (or a variable, and who knows what else) and CNTL-n drops down a list of functions or variables or whatever that match the pattern to the left of the cursor.

So it you have some_ungodly_function_name, you can type "som(CNTL-n) and autocomplete the name.

Very nifty!

DG

Vim 7 is BLOATWARE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286312)

No Thanks

YOUR MOM IS COCKWARE! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286537)

No thanks.

How does it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286314)

How does it relate to edlin?

Let's try it out (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286326)

quit
q
stop
exit
[esc]
quit damnit
ahhhhh

(just kidding, I know how to quit from vim)

Re:Let's try it out (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286370)

For those who dont.

[Esc]:q

Re:Let's try it out (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286406)

Dammit Jim, next time tell them its CTL+ALT+BACKSPACE !

... well, it will quit vim, at least in X ...

Shhhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286436)

[Esc]:q!

Shhh...We can't be giving the noobs a warning about not saving their file now.

Re:Let's try it out (1)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286470)

Actually, I've gotten used to using [esc]ZZ

Re:Let's try it out (1)

really? (199452) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286591)

Yes, but, that saves your changes, whereas ":q" or, more precisely, "q!" doesn't.

Re:Let's try it out (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286391)

ctrl-q
alt-q
alt-F4
ctrl-c
ctrl-d
esc-esc-esc-esc
awww, screwit...
*power button*

Spell Check (3, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286332)

Now I can die.

360kb floppy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286343)

Great, but will it fit in a 360kb floppy?

vim 8 will do email (3, Informative)

Tack (4642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286349)

A spellchecker? Now, to be fair, I'll probably find that useful. Still I can't help but feel vim is one step closer to proving jwz's law [wikipedia.org] .

Re:vim 8 will do email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286389)

> vim /var/mail/${USER}

I just can't get the hang of vim (4, Interesting)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286357)

I've tried on and off since 1995 to get into using vi/vim and I just can't. I am unable to make it work as smoothly as "joe". That's right, for my choice of console-based editor, I use niether vi or emacs! "joe" has been doing everything I need a text editor to do easily since 1995. I cringe when I have to use vi/vim.

I know I will get flamed for this. Oh well, it's the truth. I'm sure there are a few others that would agree with me.

On OS X, it's all about SubEthaEdit (2, Informative)

spud603 (832173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286433)

For years I tried to indoctrinate myself with vi, too.
Then i found SubEthaEdit [codingmonkeys.de] for mac os x.
I've really found no need for anything else since. I highly recommend anybody on an apple try it out. I feel like it follows the philosophy of vi (lightweight, responsive, simple, functional), but integrates well with the rest of the OS (uses apple's spell check, plays well with os x services and keyboard shortcuts). and, though i know this isn't for everyone, it follows apple's emacs-style ctrl-f, ctrl-b, etc navigation.

Re:On OS X, it's all about SubEthaEdit (3, Funny)

caseih (160668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286649)

Sure but SubEthaEdit has a very annoying and on-going bug that the developers cannot seem to reproduce or fix. Invariably, SubEthaEdit litters my code with random ":" and sometimes ":w". It's very annoying. Occasionally I see other random sequences appear like "gg", "yy", "dd", and "x".

slightly different paradigm (4, Interesting)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286435)

The paradigm is different that most other editors. Most other editors use control keys (of some sort) for functions. Vi you enter into edit mode and type away, then leave edit mode and operate on your work. It is a different concept but it has its advantages. (For one: Except for capital letters I've never had to press two buttons at once, ever ... you escape to exit your edit mode and then it is all single key sequences to do what you want. Simple things but, for example, hitting the control button requires shifting your hand in an akward position wheras :w you don't have to move whatsoever ... )

Re:slightly different paradigm (1)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286547)

Except for capital letters I've never had to press two buttons at once, ever...

Which is why I switched from emacs. Ever tried coding in emacs with a broken wrist? It's hard enough with two functional hands.

The ESC key annoys me (2, Interesting)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286611)

I find continually having to use the ESC key to be highly annoying. And really, to save a file, I don't really see CTRL-S being harder or slower to type than ESC :w

Re:slightly different paradigm (1, Informative)

johansalk (818687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286632)

Typing in vim is okay, but I found waaaay to tedious and distracting, nevermind it being incredibly frustrating and annoying, switching in and out of modes to move about and edit stuff here and there. My editor of choice now is Scite. You can't beat the simplicity of c-x, c-c, or c-v for editing and the cursor keys for moving about. I don't care if vim has 10,000 other features, I use only those ones I mentioned for perhaps 99.9% of everything I do.

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286452)

Everyone has their editor of choice, but really vi is not that difficult. These days, you can even use the arrow keys to navigate to make it even easier (although I still prefer the letters). If you can't learn how to use vi well enough to perform basic text editing functions within about 20 minutes, maybe system administration is not for you.

Vi is simple, elegant, and light-weight. It takes only a few minutes to learn, but years to truly master. Vim is a misguided attempt to add the bloat of emacs to vi.

Other editors like joe may have their uses, but vi has two major advantages:

1.) It has a deceptively simple command set that hides a tremendous amount of power. This is the Unix way.

2.) It's included in virtually all Unix and Unix-like systems, which makes it a vital skill for any sysadmin.

Vim is unnecessary and its "most useful" feature, syntax highlighting, is the first thing I disable whenever I use it, and I use it for development work (on systems where vi has been replaced by vim).

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286543)

I class any editor where you can't type right after starting it as 'difficult'.

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (0, Troll)

mrtrumbe (412155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286658)

Yeah, well I have a punch card reader that I use exclusively for input on my system. Who's got the bigger "I'm a hardcore, old-school user" dick?

Seriously, though, I can't think of a reason a person would find syntax highlighting not useful. Then, to take it further, why a person would find it so UNhelpful that they found the need to turn it off. What is it, exactly? Does it somehow distract you? Are you color blind? Do you think it slows down your editing experience? Does it mess up highlighting (something I've never experienced)?

Given that a document you are editing has content that has a well structured syntax, highlighting will help you make visual distinctions between unlike syntactical structures. This makes individual structures easier to pick out, increasing your ability to act on those structures. It's really just a question of speed.

Then, maybe I'm just too slow. Maybe for certain geniuses in our midst their brains instantly recognize constructs as distinct without any visual aide at all. If so, all the more power to ya. I'll continue to use my highlighting.

Taft

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (1)

robthebob (742982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286676)

Also interested to know *why* you would ever disable syntax highlighting?

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (1)

Zetta Matrix (245803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286503)

"Tried on and off"? I had problems with this too.

You must immerse yourself in vi, and (gasp) practice its features in increasing levels of difficulty until it becomes second nature. I used to use vanilla editors too, and the difference in text editing efficiency is astounding.

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (2, Interesting)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286592)

I do some development from Windows and Linux.

You just can't do stuff like:

Delete ^M DOS returns - :%s/\r//g
Turn ^M into "real" returns - :%s/\r/\r/g

with Joe.

More VIM tricks [rayninfo.co.uk] .

Then there's block editing (quickly comment out sections of code), recording, complete access to all commands (including navigation) from the homerow of the keyboard, etc.

joe can do it (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286665)

Switching CR/LF to ^M and vice-versa is easy with joe. I have a hunch that anything that can be done with vi/vim can also be done with joe. Joe has regex also you know.

Re:I just can't get the hang of vim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286633)

vi will probably always have a really high learning curve. Unless you have time to experiment with it or are forced to use it, it's hard to get used to vi (or gVim - which I use more).

I don't blame anyone for not being able to use it. I remember how pissed off people (including me) used to get my freshman year of college dealing with vim for the first (or second or third or tenth) time. There are number of hurdles. Knowing the difference between command mode and insertion mode for one. Learning even the basic commands to make you functional also takes a while, let alone mastering most of the commands, not to mention the different ways you can combine them.

What finally got me using vi on a regular basis was how impressed I was watching experienced vi users edit text. The speed of a vi pro is amazing. When they can insert/edit/copy-paste in the blink of an eye without touching that damn mouse, I couldn't help but ask (and keep asking) "how'd you do that?" Sure enough, as a decent gVim user, I'm pretty fast now too. For me, the learning curve was worth it. Especially considering how often I find myself on a unix box where I have to use vi.

I wonder if there is a simple video game where the controls are all vi commands to help people learn it?

VI is like a Stanley Kubrick movie (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286648)

The ability to become proficient with vi is a lot like being able to watch, follow, and understand a Stanley Kubrick movie. Some folks can just get it and some don't. If you were able to watch SO:2001 or AI from start to end, the very first time, and not get lost, and understand it all... then you'll probably pick up on becoming proficient at using vi/vim very quickly.

You know what they say about Vi users.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286362)

Small executables, small minds.

You mean ed users (5, Funny)

Cleveland Steamer (625191) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286664)

From: patl@athena.mit.edu (Patrick J. LoPresti)
Message-ID:
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Subject: The True Path (long)
Date: 11 Jul 91 03:17:31 GMT
Path: ai-lab!mintaka!olivea!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-stat e.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayu ne.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!patl
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs,alt.slack
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 95
Xref: ai-lab alt.religion.emacs:244 alt.slack:1935

When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi *and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, 'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)

NAME
          ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
          ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
          Ed is the standard text editor.
---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990 /usr/bin/emacs

Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

"Ed is the standard text editor."

Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem> ed

?
help
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?

Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.

"Ed is the standard text editor." Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their "edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

My history with VIM (4, Interesting)

ThePopeLayton (868042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286371)

I was a TA for a basic CS class for over a year. Upon first exposure the VIM (the editor that our system admins installed) many students got really frustrated. Most of them didn't understand how as they scrolled up on down with the mouse that random pieces of text got inserted all over their programs causing a tons of errors.

I too was pretty annoyed with VIM at first as that it is set up in such a way that it expects you to be a power user. I haven't downloaded the latest version but will do so shortly. But I would like to see a version of VIM that the everyday joe shmoe could use. Less clunky font, easier to set preferencess, and a way to turn of all those linux short cuts that we non-linux people are plagued with. I think there is a definate need for a more userfriendly version of VIM

Re:My history with VIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286457)

How about using an editor which is not meant to be used by experts then???

Re:My history with VIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286472)

<troll>
    I think the program you're looking for is called "Wordpad"
</troll>

(okay, and now for a useful comment: "gvim -y" will launch vim in easy mode)

Re:My history with VIM (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286479)

Your post looks like flamebait, but still - Vim is popular exactly because it works that way. Customizable (most power users have their own hand-crafted configs), light, console-based (great in shells and when your system is screwed up) and does a lot of stuff really fast if you know how to use it. I usually use vim for editing configs or when I'm too lazy to run Kate or Gedit. For editing text files, source code etc. I usually use Kate. If you don't like Vim because of its interface, use another editor, perhaps nano [nano-editor.org] . Vim's interface is the reason that makes it popular.

Re:My history with VIM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286481)

:so $VIMRUNTIME/mswin.vim

that should do it.

Re:My history with VIM (1)

pilkul (667659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286487)

Not really. If you want something beginner-friendly, try one of the hundreds of other editors, 90% of which are easier to learn to use than Vim. Vim has its target userbase and they're happy with it.

Re:My history with VIM (5, Insightful)

AnonymousKev (754127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286515)

I was forcefully introduced to vi in 1989. It was in a two-week "Introduction to C" class from Cray. The instructor (I am not making this up: his name was Kermit) had made sure that vi was the only editor on the class computer. I'll never forget his words:
vi is the most efficient editor ever written. You will hate it intensely for the first two weeks, after that you will discover you can't live without it.
He was absolutely right.

Re:My history with VIM (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286607)

I've used vi for sixteen years, I use it now about as frequently as emacs.

I still hate it. I used modal editors with better interfaces on PRIMOS of all things.

The thing I hate the most about vi? The distinction between append and insert.

:wq (1, Interesting)

joeldg (518249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286372)


yay.. spiffy new vim, vrs spiffy old vim..
though, the new features do look nice.

I actually know a guy with a ":wq" tattoo (on the back of his neck)

Re::wq (1)

SrJsignal (753163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286625)

would have been more efficient if he had a tattoo with ZZ, just a thought though.

"Intelligent" completion (1)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286394)

Intelligent completion for C, HTML, Ruby, Python, PHP, etc.

I don't know why, but I've gotten used to Ctrl+[pn] and prefer that over popups that other IDEs seem to throw up.

Re:"Intelligent" completion (1)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286536)

Me too. I hope the new feature doesn't get in the way too much. I'm interested to see how it works.

Vim mean... (0, Troll)

sheepoo (814409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286416)

Vertigo In Madness
I still have not understood why people waste their time developing and using such pieces of software where you have to bang your head against the screen to make the editor work :)
Like someone said: Keep It Simple Stupid
Maybe the developer(s) of Vim should also know this

Re:Vim mean... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286467)

You can use vim simply. You can also use it in a more complex fashion. At least on windows, gvim (the GUI version) has a simple mode where you don't have to use vi keys to get things done, and there's a ton of functionality available in the menus. At the same time, it tells you what you would have typed on the keyboard to make it happen (kind of like smit) so it's training you to use the faster method. Vim is my personal hero in editing land.

Re:Vim mean... (1)

MasterShake (617668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286544)

If you don't like vi(m) then, *cough* DON'T USE IT! I could say exactly the same things about emacs. It's all a personal choice, I for one can't stand the non-vi model of editing.

As for intuitivness, maybe I don't want every keystroke bound to some rediculous command.

-ms

--
C-u followed by a character which is neither a digit nor a minus sign has the special meaning of "multiply by four."

http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/emacs/emacs_29.htm l [delorie.com]

Re:Vim mean... (3, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286545)


Typing with two fingers is simpler than trying to remember which of the "correct" fingers go on which keys. But take the time to learn it properly and you can type far faster than you ever did before, even if there's a temporary drop in speed while you learn.

It's the same with Vi. Even if you don't learn everything that it can do, the simple fact that I can do all the major operations without having to use a bloody mouse is a plus for a touch-typist like myself. Vi is very small, very quick and very powerful. The learning curve is worth it.

vim plugins (3, Interesting)

kwench (539630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286420)

Now I'm waiting for a vim-plugin for Firefox and Opera, just like the Konqueror guys did it. So I can finally spellcheck and syntaxcheck my slashdot comments... ;-)

Cut and Paste? (2, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286426)

I wonder if it has a nicer way to cut and paste.
I have always been unhappy with yank-number of lines
or marking, etc.

Re:Cut and Paste? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286485)

Have you tried (v)isual mode?

Re:Cut and Paste? (2, Informative)

thePig (964303) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286519)

Try Esc V + use arrow keys to copy.
Paste is usual Shift + Insert.

Also you can use -

Esc v -> visual mode - character wise
Esc Cntrl+V -> Visual mode - coloumns

Whatever is in the visual mode also copies. So very easy

Re:Cut and Paste? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286598)

Hey that's great! Thanks.

No Mac Version 7 (1)

nerotik (704890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286430)

There is no version 7 for Mac available yet.

Re:No Mac Version 7 (4, Informative)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286493)

The link from the main MacVIM page is broken, but here is 7.0 for OSX:
http://macvim.org/OSX/index.php [macvim.org]

My favorite editor (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286469)

When all the other websites were putting badges on saying, "made with dreamweaver", or "made with go-live", or whatever, I made the following for my site:
made with vi [dimspace.com]

Re:My favorite editor (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286688)

Aye aye! Here's mine. [homelinux.net]

still hungry people in Uganda (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286473)

http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/uganda.html [vim.org] ... while RMS could finish Hurd from his emacs fundraising

Why vim is worse than vi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286478)

It is very difficult to turn off *ALL* of the highlight features. I don't want the search highlight, syntax highlight, spell highlight, etc. As I find the config option to disable each feature, some other highlight function remains.

It needs an option: "justlikevi=true"

More!?!?! (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286533)

I thought vim had everything one could ask for! What am I to do now, but download it and be amazed.

I think it's time for a new tag (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286577)

realultimatepower?

What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286596)

I see versions for Unix, Windows, Mac, etc. What about the most important OS to run a text editor from . . . Emacs?

Someone had to... (3, Funny)

Nightreaver (695006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15286619)

Someone had to remind slashdotters of the superior editor... Ed, man! [gnu.org]

Real Programmers use Notepad... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15286644)

Vi (visual editor)? What's visual about vi? Vi in 2006? WTF?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>