I’m surprised the author is both a long-time vim user and defends the idea that everything being built in to the editor and config being purely declarative as positives. In my mind, vim being as slim or bulky as I want it to is a strength, not a weakness, and its config being a full language (especially since neovim/lua) is a superpower. I’ve yet to have my config just randomly break in almost a decade of tweaking it from vim to neovim, across multiple distros and package managers, for what it’s worth.
Helix does look pretty intersting though, but man does the idea of relearning everything after how long it took me to build that vim muscle memory sound very daunting. vim bindings being available almost everywhere, including other editors, some websites and third party apps, and my browser as an extension, is also a big part of why I hesitate to even give it a try…
You can configure Helix to behave a lot more like vim quite easily, beyond the default keybinds which are already quite similar. You can even revert to vim-style normal/visual modes, rather than Helix’s “select by moving approach” if you really can’t stand that.
After being a vim then neovim user for many years, I fully made the switch to Helix, using some options from the config I linked, and there are only a few minor things I miss.
Yeah I agree NeoVim being extensible is wonderful, and I believe Helix has the goal of adding a plugin system. It’s also super lightweight while including a lot of these core features we see repeated in nearly every NeoVim setup, the kind of thing like LSP & Tree Sitter which shows up so often it begs the question: Should this be built into the editor.
I am also terrified of relearning all the minds after years of vim use, although a lot of the base bindings are the same or similar. I guess if I could relearn the system keyboard shortcuts when I switched OS I can do the same here.
Yeah, I won’t pretend like Neovim is perfect at all either. I do agree that setting up LSP & TreeSitter is needlessly convoluted as is. lspconfig+mason.nvim+mason-lspconfig+null-ls.nvim just to get a couple linters/formatters and decent completion… I’d love it if I could just open a file, and… it just… worked, you know.
Yeah I’m guessing that’s Helix’s approach. Maybe the bind relearning is worth it or maybe it inspires NeoVim or other Vim-like editors to come with more of the consistently repeated stuff enabled by default.
I think Helix is nice for people who are starting out with an editor. I’m not using vim because I can configure the hell out and turn it into a full-blown IDE. vim isn’t my main editor. I am using vim keybindings because they are supported widely and that means I don’t have to remember any specifics of the actual editor I am using. For me, there is zero incentive to switch to Helix.
I’m surprised the author is both a long-time vim user and defends the idea that everything being built in to the editor and config being purely declarative as positives. In my mind, vim being as slim or bulky as I want it to is a strength, not a weakness, and its config being a full language (especially since neovim/lua) is a superpower. I’ve yet to have my config just randomly break in almost a decade of tweaking it from vim to neovim, across multiple distros and package managers, for what it’s worth.
Helix does look pretty intersting though, but man does the idea of relearning everything after how long it took me to build that vim muscle memory sound very daunting. vim bindings being available almost everywhere, including other editors, some websites and third party apps, and my browser as an extension, is also a big part of why I hesitate to even give it a try…
You can configure Helix to behave a lot more like vim quite easily, beyond the default keybinds which are already quite similar. You can even revert to vim-style normal/visual modes, rather than Helix’s “select by moving approach” if you really can’t stand that.
After being a vim then neovim user for many years, I fully made the switch to Helix, using some options from the config I linked, and there are only a few minor things I miss.
Yeah I agree NeoVim being extensible is wonderful, and I believe Helix has the goal of adding a plugin system. It’s also super lightweight while including a lot of these core features we see repeated in nearly every NeoVim setup, the kind of thing like LSP & Tree Sitter which shows up so often it begs the question: Should this be built into the editor.
I am also terrified of relearning all the minds after years of vim use, although a lot of the base bindings are the same or similar. I guess if I could relearn the system keyboard shortcuts when I switched OS I can do the same here.
Yeah, I won’t pretend like Neovim is perfect at all either. I do agree that setting up LSP & TreeSitter is needlessly convoluted as is. lspconfig+mason.nvim+mason-lspconfig+null-ls.nvim just to get a couple linters/formatters and decent completion… I’d love it if I could just open a file, and… it just… worked, you know.
Yeah I’m guessing that’s Helix’s approach. Maybe the bind relearning is worth it or maybe it inspires NeoVim or other Vim-like editors to come with more of the consistently repeated stuff enabled by default.
I think Helix is nice for people who are starting out with an editor. I’m not using vim because I can configure the hell out and turn it into a full-blown IDE. vim isn’t my main editor. I am using vim keybindings because they are supported widely and that means I don’t have to remember any specifics of the actual editor I am using. For me, there is zero incentive to switch to Helix.