Hacker News Reader

Comment by phlyingpenguin | Hacker News Reader

That's not really what I was doubting (I could see that). I just doubt that it's likely to not need a configuration file if I were to replace vim with it. In GP's assertion that this is the best reason to use Amp over vim, that's not really a huge benefit in the end. A config is a config is a config, or something to that effect.

View on HN

Unfortunately, configuring Vim is rarely just pulling a config file. Pathogen and Vundle have made installing/tracking plug-ins easier, but unless things have changed, those tools required their own bootstrapping outside of simply being referenced in the config.

And that's just for Vimscript plug-ins. There are several situations (e.g. fuzzy file finders) where external binaries are preferable, for performance reasons. The idea is to include those directly in Amp, so that it's _only_ a configuration file that's needed, if at all.

All depends on your taste. My .vimrc handles ensuring that I have a plugin manager installed and that it installs those plugins on my behalf if they aren't there. And I do all of that in ~10 lines of vimL config. It's totally reasonable to have your plugin/config ensure the external binaries exist as well. The popular golang plugin has a command for that.

It ensures you have a plug-in manager installed, but it won't install it for you, right? I know that might seem like a minor nit, but if package management is considered an essential part of Vim, I'm of the mindset that it should work out of the box.

That said, Amp doesn't have plug-in support at the moment, so it's a little unfair for me to judge Vim on that front. But if it did, the package management portion would be baked in so that you'd only need to pull your configuration file and Amp would handle the rest. :)

No. I have it install the manager. Literally all I need is the .vimrc and to start vim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com