Talk:Elvis (text editor)

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

"Influenced vim development"[edit]

Okay, so "cross-pollinate" was the wrong term to use in my edit summary, but I couldn't, and still can't think of a good term to use. That aside, I really have to take issue with such a terse statement. Yes, Vim has been influenced by features that appeared in Elvis, but not what I'd call drastically. "Influenced vim development" is just too vague and--at least to me--implies more of an influence than there actually was. Vim has taken ideas from everywhere, including Emacs, CRiSP, SlickEdit, and so on. But some of the ideas that went into Vim were simply good ideas that happened to already exist in other editors. That is to say, they didn't get implemented because another editor had them.

Yes, of all the influences Vim has had, Elvis is (or was?--it doesn't look like it's currently being developed) perhaps the most significant, so I don't object to a statement like this one being made, but only if it's much more clearly stated. Am I wrong in thinking Vim also influenced Elvis in some things? I know Bram Moolenaar directly discussed feature ideas with the developer(s) of Elvis in the past.

Also, the link that got restored is still a dead link. I only got to see the content of that page by using Google's cache.

-- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 05:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the dead link, but am in the middle of more urgent work (will repair this morning). Vim indeed has "taken ideas from everywhere", systematically, and - read its changelog - very rarely gives credit in the final product (the list of credits in the help-file doesn't reflect the extent or nature of the borrowing). It's only in the wishlists that one can see the borrowing of ideas. Some in fact were borrowed explicitly because competing editors had them, not merely because they were Good Ideas. This of course is long ago - it was around 1997 or so when vim started producing original ideas. However, it's rather unlikely that I'll ever be discussing this topic with user of vim who (other than Bram) is knowledgeable about the topic. Tedickey (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel like there's at least a small measure of hostility here. Let me make it clear that I have nothing against Elvis—I like Elivs, even though I haven't used it for a while now—but I do think this article needs work, and this was one thing that really jumped out at me. The way it's phrased right now is just plain not clear. It should also probably be in the main article with a footnote type link instead of in the external links section.

Specifically addressing some of your comments, I said that some of the ideas that went into Vim [...], not all or even most. As for giving credit, I see quite a lot of projects take ideas from other projects with little or no credit. I don't think it's fair, but it happens; if you have specific examples regarding Vim, I think it would be reasonable to actually ask Bram to give credit where it's due. Bram is actually pretty good about giving credit to individuals who contribute, even minor things like bug reports.

As for my being knowledgeable about this topic, it is certainly true that I don't know the full story, but I have definitely been following Vim development fairly closely for quite some time (at least since Vim 5 development, which would mean about 1996-1997).

-- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then develop it as a footnote. Tedickey (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elvis (text editor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

github[edit]

The releases and changes on github appear to be just older versions which had already been released. Suggesting that the reader dig through the git-logs to verify (or disprove) this is out of scope for Wikipedia TEDickey (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]