Regarding the terminology:
My point of confusion with the term "a vim script" is that, in
addition to bearing a similarity to the "vimscript" or "VimL"
programming language, this can imply either of two other things:
- a package, downloadable from "http://vim.org/scripts/script.php?
script_id=$some_number", which provides new functionality for or
ameliorates existing functionality of the `vim` editor
- an individual file to be installed, as part of such a package, to,
for example, 'plugin/vigour.vim'.
My question was just if there is a preference or consensus on what
instances of the second of those two types of things should be called.
The term "plugin" is particularly confusing in this sense, as it is
the name of one of the directories into which *.vim files are
installed, and thereby indicates a subclass of *.vim file, as
differentiated from an autoload or filetype-plugin file.
It seems like Python is mostly used for more complex modules that, as
Marc mentions, do "heavy lifting", such as the conque module linked to
in Marko's list, or the very useful DBGp debugger module (http://
www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1152). As well, there are
numerous modules that are to be used for python development (again see
Marko's list), where it's pretty safe to assume that the Python
dependency is met.
VimL/vimscript as a language is, I've found, not entirely terrible,
and is fairly well suited to scripting vim. The worst of the fallout
from its storied history would seem to be an inconsistency to nearly
rival that of PHP. But it does lack portability, a large, organized,
and growing library, module dependency management, and a lot of the
convenience factors that are readily available in Python. For
example, being able to use Python's shlex module, or even argparse, to
parse user-defined command invocations can be very useful.
So I'd really like to be able to just use Python as a general rule
when writing vim modules, even simple ones, and eventually find a way
to streamline this sort of thing. But since about half of the people
who responded to my question indicated some objection to running a
python-enabled vim, this seems like an inconsiderate policy. This
assumes that the sampling of people who did raise objections to the
use of Python have a tendency to use third-party vim modules under the
same set of circumstances in which `has('python') == 0`. Presumably
they wouldn't have responded if that weren't the case.
Cheers
-Ted
On Jul 7, 7:33 pm, Tony Mechelynck <antoine.mechely...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 30/06/10 03:20, Ted wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello folks,
>
> > I'm wondering if there are some figures somewhere that would provide
> > some sort of estimate of the percentage of vim users who have python
> > installed, or would be free of objections to installing it if a module
> > required it. I'm working on some vim modules, to be released for
> > general use, that are threatening to become pretty complicated, and
> > would prefer to write them in python. Is it likely that this would
> > lock out a significant portion of the vim user population? Is it
> > frowned upon to use external languages in cases where it's not
> > entirely necessary? Python is more or less ubiquitous on linux
> > installs, but I don't feel like I could guess at how many vim users on
> > other platforms would be unable or unwilling to install it.
>
> > The modules themselves are relatively general purpose; my motivation
> > to code them in Python stems partly from this very generality: it's
> > advantageous to have that code available outside of the context of
> > vim. I also find that I tend more and more toward a functional
> > programming style that doesn't work particularly well in vimscript.
>
> > Cheers
> > -Ted
>
> Myself, I have Python installed "just in case", and even compiled into
> Vim, but in practice I don't use it, in part because I don't know
> Python, in part because, to extend or customize Vim, vimscript is good
> enough for me. If I found a good useful script written in Vim + Python I
> would not necessarily shun it as others have said they would; but so far
> all my third- (and second- ;-) ) -party scripts are in "plain" vimscript.
>
> About terminology: I think it isn't cast in bronze, but personally I use
> "a Vim script" in two words to mean "a file to be sourced by Vim", or
> "vimscript" in one word to mean "the programming language used to write
> Vim scripts".
>
> My main use (AFAIK) for the Python interpreter is to run Mercurial ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
> --
> The fact that it works is immaterial.
> -- L. Ogborn
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
