Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

...But it still can't match org.

Maybe in 10 years?

> ...But it still can't match org.

But you have to start somewhere.

> Maybe in 10 years?

Org mode has a 5 year advantage over vimwiki (2003 vs 2008) and significantly more contributors. Vimwiki only seems to have had meaningful contributions from others since Q3 2014 So maybe. Who knows.

With vim's relatively high popularity over Emacs, I wouldn't be surprised if vimwiki is able to match org within a few years.

Ah, but that assumes popularity is all that matters. I think that emacs's programming model and programming language are both superior to vim's, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that it takes longer to implement the same functionality with the same extensibility in vim than it would in emacs.

It also assumes that the average vim developer has roughly the same skill as the average emacs developer. Is that true, though? Obviously I'm biased, but it seems to me that emacs is far friendlier to the sort of user who demands the ability to extend his environment as he wishes.

Which leads me to the question of whether as many vim users are also vim developers, as emacs users are also emacs developers? I think that the former is fairly uncommon, whilst the latter is fairly common. Sure, there are emacs users who don't extend it, but my perception is that they are far rarer than vim users who just use their editor.

I'm an Emacs user, and I love it a lot. However, I do believe that the Vim community has traditionally been more active with producing plugins.

How so? Emacs has been extensible since it was written; vi wasn't until vim came around, and writing extensions in vimscript is pretty brutal compared to using elisp.

Does vim have an equivalent to gnus, magit, eww, erc, emms, slack-mode, info &c.? Probably a few of those, but of the ones it has are they as mature?

...That was my point. Maybe in 10 years, it will be able to match org.

Org mode has one advantage that sets it apart: Elisp.

When I tried it (about 2 years ago), I found org a bit tedious for this particular use case: a personal wiki, made up of a bunch of small interlinked files, intended to be exportable to a plain HTML wiki-like set of pages. It's possible to do, but required fiddling and elisp writing on both the emacs side [1] and the export side, and I gave up somewhere in the export process. The export system has been reworked since then, though, so it's possible things are now better (would love to see a tutorial on how to do this if so).

[1] e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26669280/setup-a-personal...


There you go. Very little Elisp required, and maybe a little bit more if you want styles. But if you don't have the constraint of being able to browse file:// style, you can link absolutely, so you just need a template, which is doable.

Or you can use the Jekyll plugin, if you want to go that way.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact