On 2024-04-28 22:59, Igbanam Ogbuluijah wrote:
> Do I want a setup like this?
>
> read results back into
> +---------------------------------+
> v |
> +-----+ write lines out to +------+ (1)
> | vim | ------------------------> | tool |
> +-----+ +------+
>
> Or do I want this?
>
> +-----+
> | vim | (2)
> +-----+
>
> It's amazing we can do 1, but 2 seems a lot more consolidated.
Consolidated? perhaps. But the separation is part of the appeal
of using Unix as an IDE[1]. I can replace each component independently
without needing a complete rip-and-replace of everything I know.
When RCS got supplanted by CVS, it didn't change my Makefile or
$EDITOR workflow. Same when Subversion supplanted CVS and when git
supplanted Subversion. Or when vim supplanted vi. (or when vi
displaced ed(1), FWIW). Same with my spell-check utilities. Or
my build-process orchestrator (though Makefiles have held up
remarkably well). When I want to debug Python with pdb instead of
C using GDB, I don't have to do anything special, just like I don't
have to worry that my next programming language doesn't have vim
integration because it has a standalone debugger that works in any
shell or $EDITOR.
I've used the integrated environments and they tend to churn. Visual
Studio, multiple Java IDEs, Sublime, Atom, VS Code, etc. Their
incorporate-everything rigidity becomes their downfall.
-tim
[1]
https://blog.sanctum.geek.nz/series/unix-as-ide/
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/Zi8FZECI0m7NijkF%40thechases.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment