Vim Lands Asynchronous Processing Support

[Cyber Killer]

Speaking of editors, 'ne' is a pretty good one also. Quite powerfull with a ui reminding of the graphical editors.

[Azpegath]

To me it actually looked like the two projects are diverging because the project leaders disagree on fundamental design issues:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/_SbMTGshzVc/wXmJuL4PDQAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/vim_dev/_SbMTGshzVc/XZEXxaxDDQAJ

I'd be really happy to see evidence of collaboration.

I agree, Neovim will never move closer to Vim again. The differences are huge now and the code has been diverging from day 1. The purpose of Neovim is to create a modern version of Vim, feature-wise. The code could diverge infinitely, as long as the basic Vim functionality stays.
I've been supporting Neovim with funding for over a year now and really hope they succeed in improving Vim in a direction which I would like it to go.

Just throwing away support for ancient architectures and impossible build combinations deserves a medal. Changing build environment to CMake (even though CMake might not be the best thing in the world) is also such a huge step forward that you start to think "what the hell are Vim-developers thinking?".

[Azpegath]

I agree, Neovim will never move closer to Vim again. The differences are huge now and the code has been diverging from day 1. The purpose of Neovim is to create a modern version of Vim, feature-wise. The code could diverge infinitely, as long as the basic Vim functionality stays.
I've been supporting Neovim with funding for over a year now and really hope they succeed in improving Vim in a direction which I would like it to go.

Just throwing away support for ancient architectures and impossible build combinations deserves a medal. Changing build environment to CMake (even though CMake might not be the best thing in the world) is also such a huge step forward that you start to think "what the hell are Vim-developers thinking?".

With that said, I think it's great if Vim decides to maintain support for building on the Apple 2 and an Amiga 500. But there's no reason for Neovim to do the same.

[bug77]

To me it actually looked like the two projects are diverging because the project leaders disagree on fundamental design issues:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vim_dev/_SbMTGshzVc/wXmJuL4PDQAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/vim_dev/_SbMTGshzVc/XZEXxaxDDQAJ

I'd be really happy to see evidence of collaboration.

Why collaboration? Maybe they'll merge to spite each other.

Also, not exactly vim, but I can't not post this (again): https://twitter.com/iamdevloper/stat...923200?lang=en

[Archprogrammer]

With that said, I think it's great if Vim decides to maintain support for building on the Apple 2 and an Amiga 500. But there's no reason for Neovim to do the same.

Alas, Vim might not build on and Amiga 500 anymore. I did however port Vim 7.2 to AmigaOS a couple of years ago and it was a joy to see how easy it was - I do hope NeoVim does not become less portable just to "clean up the code".

[Azpegath]

Alas, Vim might not build on and Amiga 500 anymore. I did however port Vim 7.2 to AmigaOS a couple of years ago and it was a joy to see how easy it was - I do hope NeoVim does not become less portable just to "clean up the code".

No, I actually think that their goal was to become more portable, but to clean away support for old hardware (old #ifdefs) that hadn't even been working for years. They have however replaced a lot of the code with libraries instead, something that always involves a risk regarding portability.

Some info and comments here!

http://geoff.greer.fm/2015/01/15/why-neovim-is-better-than-vim/