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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_use/Zi8FZECI0m7NijkF%40thechases.com.
