Reply to message «Multiple vim instances versus single instance?», sent 01:28:56 22 March 2011, Tuesday by howard Schwartz:
> I have an unsubstantiaed belief that running multiple vim's with multiple > files, each writing viminfo, swap, backup, or session files, etc. -- now > and then, is asking for trouble. Swap files prevent you from editing one file in different vim sessions. Others are fine, though without plugins like my `parinfo' (not posted to vim.org, is to be rewritten, but works now: bitbucket.org/ZyX_I/parinfo), using viminfo is not much fun: you will be constantly loosing parts of command-line history. Though I never experienced corrupt viminfo. Other files (backup, sessions) are just fine if you don't disable swap and don't edit one file in different vim instances. > I wonder what others think about this? Certainly, vim's text-based windows > are no match for graphical xterms. But the huge apparatus of multiple > args, buffers, file explorers, windows, and tabs, sessions, views - - is > meant to manage multiple files better inside vime, compared to outside - > no? Otherwise, why bother? When I want to edit a file I just type `vim file'. What I am supposed to do if I want to keep one vim session? Don't suggest me switching to other terminal window and typing anything there. > Certainly, inside vim one can more easily switch files/buffers, cut and > paste between files, do global changes and jumps, with many files, and so > on. I don't need to instantly paste anything between different projects, so `one vim for one project + one vim for each non-project file' is fine. Though I keep editing tests in a separate vim, not in that one that holds project. Setting vim up to `one vim for one project' is easier than `one vim for all projects'. Original message: > John wrote: > > Well, multiple instances give more flexibility with window placement, > > and make use of one's window manager and one's skills with it. > > There's already multiple windows with browser, xterms, file managers, > > and so on. > > Yes, I have a (blind) friend that prefers to manage multiple vim instances > from a shell so he can use his familiar unix command-line skills. > > I have an unsubstantiaed belief that running multiple vim's with multiple > files, each writing viminfo, swap, backup, or session files, etc. -- now > and then, is asking for trouble. Indeed, my friend does seem to experience > corrupt viminfo files with some frequency. I wonder if using a single > instance is less prone to errors, corrupt files, etc? > > > and vim has a limited repertoire of window stuff > > I wonder what others think about this? Certainly, vim's text-based windows > are no match for graphical xterms. But the huge apparatus of multiple > args, buffers, file explorers, windows, and tabs, sessions, views - - is > meant to manage multiple files better inside vime, compared to outside - > no? Otherwise, why bother? > > Certainly, inside vim one can more easily switch files/buffers, cut and > paste between files, do global changes and jumps, with many files, and so > on. And the shell command lets one leave vim easily and do shell or xterm > work, as one pleases. > > I would think there would only be major advantages of multiple vims in > multiple windows, if vim were a graphical editor like wordpad.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
