Sure, perhaps it’s possible that I saw an unusually high amount of apologists, but I’m saying that it happened enough times and consistently enough that it prompted me to block them before I even knew anything about them, which I think at least says something. I won’t claim to know what the majority opinion there is, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that it’s an abnormal amount.
Answer me this: are they or are they not consistently in support of Russia/China? Because I’ve seen it a lot from them (and blocked the instance soon after joining Lemmy when I noticed the pattern).
Is it just some big joke that went over my head?
I dunno, I ended up blocking the instance way before I knew about their reputation (like, when I first joined Lemmy) because all of the users their kept posting the most unhinged shit.
I have definitely seen blatant apologism for China/Russia from them.
FWIW, I’m much further left than your average Democrat (I consider myself a leftist/anarchist). I personally don’t consider what I’ve seen from them to be very “left”, just authoritarian.
! is supported
Vim’s command line, i.e, commands starting with :. The vanishingly few it does support are, again, only the most basic, surface-level commands (and some commands aren’t even related to their vim counterparts, like :cwindow, which doesn’t open the quick fix list since the extension doesn’t support that feature).
Your experience is out of date.
The last commit to the supported features doc was 5 years ago, so no, it isn’t. Seriously, you can’t possibly look at that doc and tell me that encompasses even 20% of vim’s features. Where’s the quick fix list? The location list? The args list? The change list? The jump list? Buffers? Vim-style window management (including vim’s tabs)? Tags? Autocommands (no, what it has does not count)? Ftplugins? ins-completion? The undo tree? Where’s :edit, :find, :read [!], and :write !? :cdo, :argdo, :bufdo, :windo?
Compared to what vim can do, it is absolutely a joke.
I’m a senior software engineer with a pretty uncommon skill set. Recruiters are the primary way that companies hire in my industry outside of networking contacts and I get contacted frequently. The job before my current one was through a recruiter.
I very much dislike Microsoft and LinkedIn in general, but not using it all is a huge handicap that isn’t worth taking on.
It’s how recruiters find me, so unfortunately I can’t. I almost never open it, though.
I use a different tool, visidata. It’s especially nice when used as a psql pager.
A text editor isn’t the right tool for editing tabular data, imo.
As for KaTeX, what I would do is have a preview process running outside of vim that watches for changes in source files and re-renders. That’s the Unix way of doing things.
There’s many very basic features of vim that VsVim does not have (like… almost all command line commands), basic features which regular vim users use all the time.
You seem to think that people using vim emulation is the norm and using vim itself is the exception and unusual… Which is very much not the case. The opposite is true, with VsVim users being a minority. It’s relatively novel among vscode users (most just use a mouse and maybe a small handful of built-in shortcuts), whereas vim itself is quite ubiquitous in the Unix world, with many Linux machines even providing it as the default editor. I know many vim and emacs users (including lots that I work with), and maybe 1 VsVim user (honestly not even sure if they do).
And I was expanding on my original comment, which was not replying to you, so there you have it.
Yeah it sounds like you’re trying to mock me but it mostly just comes across as confusing. Maybe it’s just sarcasm? Hard to tell.
Anyway, it’s pretty well-known in the vim community that VSVim is pretty lackluster vim emulation. There are much better examples of vim emulation out there, such as evil for emacs.
It honestly has nothing to do with being a “power user”. It’s simply false to claim that vscode has more features than vim (which is what the parent comment was claiming), and this should be evident to anyone with more than the most basic, surface-level understanding of vim (more than vimtutor, basically). Vim is a lot more than HJKL and ciw.
I’m not annoyed with VsVim really since I honestly don’t really think about it as it’s not all that relevant. I do find it a bit irksome when people make false or misleading claims about vim from a place of ignorance about what it actually is.
It’s a strange phenomenon with vim in particular, where many people are exposed to it at their periphery, read some reductive claim about it online, and parrot said claim all over the place as though it were fact. Perhaps the nature of being a tool that most are exposed to but few actually learn.
I made this mistake for ages because Haskell is so popular and it’s functional and pure, but it’s not actually a requirement for functional languages to be pure. OCaml isn’t.
I didn’t say that FP languages have to necessarily be pure, just that FP languages tackle the problem of mutation by arranging programs such that most things are typically pure and side effects typically happen at the periphery (logging is probably the one exception, though). This is true even in FP languages that allow arbitrary side effects in functions, it’s just not enforced by a compiler.
I agree Rust code has a different feel to OCaml code but that’s because it makes some things easier (e.g. mutation, vectors). You still could write Rust as if it was OCaml (except for the lack of currying), it’s just that nobody does that because it sucks.
That’s the entire point, though. It’s all about what the language emphasizes and makes easy to do. If it’s unnatural to write a functional program in Rust and no one does it, then it’s not really reasonable to call it a functional language. Writing functional programs is not idiomatic Rust, and that’s okay.
Fundamentally it’s a language oriented around blocks of statements rather than composition of expressions. Additionally, it takes a different approach to the mutation problem than FP languages: where FP seeks to make most things pure and push mutation and side effects to the edges of the program, Rust uses its type system to make such mutation and side effects more sane. It’s an entirely different philosophy when it comes to programming. I don’t think either approach is necessarily better, mind you, just a different set of tradeoffs.
I’m a professional Haskell developer and am very much immersed in FP. When I read Rust code, I have to completely shift my thinking to something much more imperative. Whereas if I read, say, Ocaml, the difference is mostly syntactic. This isn’t a slight, mind you. I quite like Rust. But it’s a very different paradigm.
It’s not a functional language at all, even if it borrows ideas from FP languages. It’s an imperative language through and through.
Vim is extremely feature-rich, and people that think otherwise don’t really know how to use vim. Saying vim doesn’t have a lot of features is just a meme that isn’t true.
Also, the vim plugin for vscode is kind of a joke compared to what vim can do. It’s very “surface-level” with minor emulation of some of the common keybinds.
This is completely different from electron. Nix dependencies will be shared if they share the same hash. Electron just blindly copies everything over every time.
A language is not functional just because it supports higher order functions. Technically C even supports them (even though the ergonomics and safety of them are terrible). Would you call C a functional programming language? Obviously not. Rust is also not a functional language, even though it comes closer than most OO/imperative languages.
Kotlin and plenty of other OO languages have borrowed some ideas from functional languages in recent years because those ideas are useful. That doesn’t make them functional languages. If Kotlin were a functional language, then it wouldn’t need libraries like arrow to try to make doing FP in Kotlin even (kind of) possible.
Hallmarks of FP (beyond higher-order functions), in no particular order:
There are some minor exceptions, such as Clojure lacking pattern matching, but on the whole functional languages generally fit these descriptions.
That list also counts Java and C# as “functional languages”. I wouldn’t take it too seriously. Ocaml, Scala, F#, etc. are impure functional languages. Kotlin absolutely is not. Having a couple of features you might find in functional languages does not make a language functional. Kotlin is still very much an OOP-based language. It’s basically a somewhat nicer Java.
Minor nit: Kotlin is decidedly not a functional language.
Design patterns in OOP exist purely to solve the problems created by OOP itself. If you have a language with proper ADTs and higher order functions, the need for traditional design patterns disappear since the problems they solve are first-class features baked into the language.
The first-class replacement for the Strategy pattern (and many other patterns such as the Visitor pattern) is sum types (called enums in Rust).
All it means is if you were to reverse the order of the characters, you’d get the same string you started with. So “dog” isn’t a palindrome because when you reverse it, you get “god”. “dog god” is a palindrome, though, because if you read it backwards, it’s also “dog god”.
Why are you such a piece of shit? Or is this just bait?