Jump to content

Talk:Vim (text editor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the use of Vim with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Text editor support.

History of the acronym

[edit]
Resolved
 – Date updated by Tedickey to 1993 (sourced), which corresponds to the earliest version referencing Vi IMproved. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ryan" source says "The name “Vim” originally stood for Vi IMitation, but it later became Vi IMproved. The name was changed in 1992 when version 1.22 was released". However, in the "Release history" section, we say "December 14, 1993 - v2.0 - This is the first release using the name Vi IMproved." The source for the latter entry isn't terribly useful in it's archive.org form as it's a directory listing and the links don't appear to work.

We need to find some other sources to date that change and ideally to flesh out some context around it. If that's not possible, we might have to note a discrepancy. I'm not sure the filewatcher citation is of any use now and should possibly be removed. --kingboyk (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on "vim" "Vi IMitation" "history" (with the quotes) turns up a bunch of sources, but I didn't have time to do more than skim a few.
Some of them are:
Like I said, I just skimmed these. I will see if I can get some time to do a proper evaluation in the next week or so if somebody doesn't do it first. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a thought re the Ryan source. It was written in November 2011 (and very nicely written too). This article was already quite well fleshed out by then - here's how it stood on 26 October 2011. One has to wonder if the author consulted this article. We then reference him... well, you see where I'm going :) That's a wider problem for Wikipedia. It does though strengthen my opinion that we need some extra sources. @OliviaZoe0: will you take a look at the above links and/or look for some other sources? Confirmation of when the name changed would be good, and indeed why. --kingboyk (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I have a collection of vim tarballs, vim's record-keeping in the early 1990s is not systematic): vim-1.27 (April 9, 1993) refers to it as "Vi IMitation", while vim-2.0 (December 14, 1993) refers to it as "Vi IMproved". I'd disregard the sources entirely which diverge from those known points. TEDickey (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This checks out. Looking at the readme and comments in some headers still refer to Vi IMitation up until 2.0. That being said, it's entirely possible the name change was done without modifying the code. It could be an internal reference and/or was a name change set to affect a later version. The thing is that all the sources originate from the Vim developer in a somewhat unclear manner (because it's entirely possible for i.e. Wikipedia to change its name now, but not have it take effect until the end of the year). I suggest we don't do anything about the version yet. Let's try to find a source that looks slightly different than being straight from the developer to see when it really took effect. If we can't do that, I'd suggest re-writing the paragraph to either include the 1.22 rename, but specify that it at least didn't take effect until 2.0, or just cut the 1.22 part entirely. -- OliviaZoe0 ❤️ (She/her) (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter (remove mention of 1.22 and correct the year). It's more than "some headers", because "Vi IMitation" was used throughout the code (45 occurrences in 1.24, 44 in 1.27, replaced by "Vi IMproved" in each case in 2.0). There are 54 C-files in 2.0, with 7 not mentioning vim at all. Further, 1.22 is undated in the source code, implying perhaps a year before 2.0 was released. The 1992 date is given by someone long after the event. There's no contemporary source for anything earlier than late 1993. The version.c file description of 1.22 doesn't correspond to the first source given (apparently written by someone who began using vim 6 years later) which says something entirely different: "The name was changed in 1992 when version 1.22 was released with compelling new features and a UNIX port." versus 

 VIM 1.22 - Fixed a bug in doput() with count > 1.                              
            Port to linux by Juergen Weigert included.                          
            More unix semantics in writeit(), forceit flag ignores errors while 
            preparing backup file. For UNIX, backup is now copied, not moved.   
            When the current directory is not writable, vim now tries a backup  
            in the directory given with the backupdir option. For UNIX, raw mode
            has now ICRNL turned off, that allowes ^V^M. Makefiles for BSD,     
            SYSV, and linux unified in makefile.unix. For MSDOS                 
            mch_get_winsize() implemented. Reimplemented builtin termcaps in    
            term.c and term.h. set_term() now handles all cases. Even builtins  
            when TERMCAP is defined. Show "..." while doing filename completion

i.e., not compelling. The second source given for the 1992 date does not mention this at all. TEDickey (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the other mention of 1992 (Unix port in 1.22) needs a better source, since the sole (primary) primary source given omits the month and year, unlike the other versions listed in that source, likely because (a) there was no public announcement and/or (b) the year was filled in from memory. Late 1992 is plausible since the (dated) 1.24 came in mid-January. That does express an intention to change the name, but lacking a published, contempory WP:RS to the contrary, the 'actual change took place about a year later. One's memory is not a reliable source TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated further, finding that Ryan did in fact use this topic as the source for the comment about 1.22, and added the note with the supporting information to one of my FAQs. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And following up, applied the changes which I've indicated. By the way, I found no useful (non-primary) source for the 1988 date which were not quoting from the sole primary source. As mentioned elsewhere, a useful source would be from the early 1990s, and not part of a promotional presentation. So I tagged that also TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trimmed advert for course

[edit]

That's not an improvement to the topic, nor especially of interest to anyone other than would-be bloggers TEDickey (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tedickey reverts

[edit]

@Tedickey: What is not WP:ELYES ? External link to free courseware on topic. What does "would-be bloggers" mean? "advert" is NPOV, any link is an "advert"? Let others improve this article.

  • Yue, Aaron. "98-277: The Vim Editor: Philosophy, Principles and Practice". Carnegie Mellon University. - Vim College Course

external link to free textbook on topic...

Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a student-taught course, for instance. TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vim Assistant

[edit]

What, no mention of Vim Assistant?????

https://www.vim.org/images/vimassistant.gif

(=;

18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3820:8BFE:E6C5:C921 (talk)

Neovim features

[edit]

@Tedickey: the neovim section only briefly describes the goal of the fork, without listing any actual features. Could you explain how the inclusion of this information is "promotional"? Simply mentioning features of Neovim does not equate to promoting it. Is there a way I could have worded it better? Psr31 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, cited in your edit as "prominent" (i.e., notable/important) features. That's promotional editing. Keep in mind that neovim's content here lacks independent, reliable sources TEDickey (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I revised my edit to instead elaborate on a previously cited source, the neovim documentation, which mentions these changes as major features. This matches content under the section "Features and improvements over vi", which cites the vim documentation. I also note the lack of citations in the section, would this content be considered promotional also?
Psr31 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the wikipedia guidelines, notability is not something that you can source from a developer's website talking about their product, but instead is derived from multiple independent sources. By the way, your last change comment does not match the change. TEDickey (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more appropriate to cite a blog post? It’s difficult to find secondary sources which reference software features, which I assume is why there is already a lack of secondary sources for the section “Features and improvements over vi”. Could you explain how my comment does not match the change? Psr31 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLOG. Your change did not "revert", but instead presented the information in a different manner than before TEDickey (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for neovim needs fixing

[edit]

Something is wrong with the date and I honestly can't make heads or tails of the syntax sorry. 111.220.175.144 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it was a missing Wikidata parameter (version type), I fixed it.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 23:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clipboard

[edit]

@Dexxor: I believe paragraph on Clipboard should be moved to the Neovim subsection as the latter isn't compiled with built-in support for clipboard. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this article mention system clipboard support at all? That's not something that sets (Neo)vim apart from other editors. It's true though that one of Neovim goals is to "reduce friction for users" by not letting distros disable the +clipboard compile-time option (and other options). Dexxor (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not something that sets Well it does. There is no builtin support for it in neovim by default. This might be an unexpected feature for many newcomers.

«Nvim has no direct connection to the system clipboard. Instead it depends on a provider which transparently uses shell commands to communicate with the system clipboard or any other clipboard "backend".[1].»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This quote shows that Neovim does support the system clipboard. The fact that Neovim uses shell commands to achieve this is an implementation detail. Since system clipboard support is inherently platform-dependent, it's only natural for Neovim to shell out to xclip, wl-copy or whatever tool the platform uses. Many programs implement clipboard support this way. Dexxor (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just mention tha neovim's clipboard depends on third party tools. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced vs. improved

[edit]

I changed "improved clone of" to "enhanced clone of" in the intro, but I botched the change log (ironically, because I hit escape, as I do habitually while using 'vi'). I meant to say that "enhanced" was not denigrating, as "improved" might taken to be. (OK, all done inserting -- but don't hit escape!) BMJ-pdx (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Neovim back into a separate entry

[edit]

It is weird that Neovim is a section inside Vim. It is the fact that Neovim is a fork of Vim, but it has been not just a simple "improvement" of Vim and should no longer be inside the Vim entry.

Neovim is currently a project with enormous updates and its own community base, making it nowadays very different from Vim. Therefore, I truly believe that the merger back in 2016 was a mistake.

There are real cases on Wikipedia:

  • GNU Emacs is based on the original Emacs, but GNU Emacs has a separate entry unlike Neovim.
  • Vim is based on vi, but Vim is not inside the Vi entry.
  • Sway is a drop-in replacement of i3, but Sway is not inside the i3 entry.

Charles Dong (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a split. Neovim has progressed a long way beyond vim. Wire723 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vim_(text_editor)&oldid=1226334827"