Just to know. why did you mention proudly? I don't use it either, but i thought it had gotten pretty stable over time and has very few issues. What problems do you see using neovim?
Most of the claims from neovim seem over the top and off from factual i.e. vim base code is so bad it is unreliable.
> Every other aspect of Vim is irredeemable. The codebase is atrocious. The plugin API is cumbersome and restrictive. The dev community is apathetic. The benevolent dictator is averse to change. There is no chance of fixing these problems. http://usevim.com/2015/01/16/neovim-better/
To be fair, the one example you give is from a person not directly (to my knowledge) associated with the neovim fork. There was more than a bit of discontent, I think, at the slow rate of progress Vim was making compared to more modern options. I've been using Vim about as long as you have, and I have to say that I welcome the options neovim brings to my favourite editor.
I suppose it's impossible to have any fork of such a well-worn, fundamental piece of software without some feeling the need to be partisan. I have to say, though, that Mr Arruda has regularly conducted himself with a great deal of courtesy and professionalism, at least in every instance I have seen. I'm quite happy to be throwing his team a few bucks every month.
https://github.com/neovim/neovim/wiki/Introduction#motivatio...
Here was Bram Moolenaar (Vim foudner/Maintainer) The guy didn't take money for the job but asked people to donate money to African Orphans and they do a fundraiser to cut the man off?
"It's going to be an awful lot of work, with the result that not all systems will be supported, new bugs introduced and what's the gain for the end user exactly?
Total refactoring is not a solution. It's much better to improve what we have. Perhaps with some small refactorings specifically aimed at making Vim work better for users." https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/vim_dev/x0BF9Y0Uby...
I'm also a little unclear on what Ugandan fundraising has to do with this. Does taking money for Vim development preclude charity? After all, Bram himself took donations for his work on Vim for some time. From the Vim.org sponsor page (http://www.vim.org/sponsor):
Fixing bugs and adding new features takes a lot of effort. To show your appreciation for the work and motivate Bram and others to continue working on Vim please send a donation.
Since Bram is back to a paid job the money will now (after March 2006) be used to help children in Uganda. This is the charity recommended by Vim's author. The money is used for a children centre in the south of Uganda, where AIDS has caused many victims. But at the same time donations increase Bram's motivation to keep working on Vim!
I don't see the problem here.
Not sure "how" a fork happens is interesting; do you mean why it happened? This has been stated before.
I didn't think anyone disputed those statements (end of your post). Why did neovim start if they weren't true? You'd just submit code fixes etc and get them accepted, right? Did this not happen? If async support was already in vim why is there so much activity on async plugins for neovim now?
It doesn't really matter what you think of how vim was treated; i've seen cordial conversation between the main dev of both projects suggesting both parties benefit from neovim, and at the end of the day users and potential vim/neovim developers can only benefit what with them both continuing to be open source projects.
Because people like to build a new X to replace the old x. This was MUCH more about code not being accepted into Vim and personalities then code, in my opinion.