On 4/24/07, Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 05:57:45PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > On 4/24/07, Ilya Sher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Robert Lee wrote: > >> [snip] > > > >> Counterwish #2: Dump VimScript and replace it with EMCAScript (maybe > >> using SpiderMonkey) so that people don't need to learn a new language > >If I understand you correctly, you assume that > >ECMAScript is the most popular language among > >the people that wish to customize VIM. How > >do you know the assumption is right? > > Aw, come on. Everyone knows ECMAScript. It's like with HTML: > everyone knows HTML. It's like on the web and stuff. > > I mean, seriously, it's a lot more intuitive to write > > Vim.options['formatoptions'] = Vim.options['formatoptions'].replace('t', "") > > than > > :set fo-=t > > It's all about domain specific languages. It's said so on the internet.Hey, congratulations! You designed a crappy API! Of course, you can design a crappy API in any language.
Yes, sorrry. My two minute API design is obviously flawed. Perhaps we can get to see a better one?
Take a look at this: :let &fo = substitute(&fo, "t", "", "") That looks terrible! Oh, hang on, you say there's a better way?
Yes?
I'm not impressed with your strawman argument.
And I'm not impressed with your argument for replacing VimScript with ECMAScript. Either way, this point is completely moot. VimScript strikes a balance between being a set of editor commands and a programming balance. It's not perfect by any means, but it does fit the model quite well. It won't be replaced, for the simple reason that VimScript is, in essence, Vim. nikolai
