5 ms·
Speed (both in the CPU/memory usage and in speed of editing using advanced commands), backwards compatibility with older servers, ubiquity (guaranteed it is on
by cbdevidal 7mo ago
Speed (both in the CPU/memory usage and in speed of editing using advanced commands), backwards compatibility with older servers, ubiquity (guaranteed it is on every server you touch), insane feature count vs Nano, and my fingers mostly stay on the home row.
Its major downfall is the commands are hardly intuitive, but I forced myself to learn it by doing everything in Vim (including shopping lists) and it now feels comfortable.
Then you have situations where you have no choice. I work for a company with over 100,000 servers and they only install Vim and disallow us installing anything else.
Not that we would have time; we’re in and out of each server in five minutes then on to the next ticket.
- tpoacher 7mo agoI won't deny that vim has an "insane" feature count (particularly with plugins), but people who claim this kind of comparison typically vastly underestimate nano's own feature count and flexibility / extensibility. And I'm surprised this usually comes as a surprise to people, given nano provides the ability for both internal (i.e. macros) and external scripts to manipulate its buffer. In principle you could even run non-interactive vim commands through nano if you really wanted to.
- cbdevidal 7mo agoThat’s a fair point, but the rest are still relevant. I simply cannot use Nano at my job but once you learn the basics Vi is not bad.