On 4/24/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
More intuitive?
I was being sarcastic. The whole point is that VimScript has a very
specific problem-domain and the language reflects that. If one was to
use, for example, ECMAScript as the way of giving commands to Vim one
would have a very much more cumbersome interface to work with. Again,
having ECMAScript as an extension language, like Ruby or Python, is
fine, I don't argue with that. But the key word of the initial
statement was "replace". It was most likely just a wind up, but it
was then suggested that it was actually a good idea.
:set fo-=t
I'm not saying that what the above statement is obvious in what it
will actually do, if anyone thought that. I'm just saying that it's a
very simple way to modify the options of Vim, if you know what you're
doing.
nikolai
