All it is is a call to `window.scrollTo()` with some logic to determine the position of the element we want to scroll to. See  for the code of the actual function that does the scrolling. Is there acceleration? There doesn't seem to be on Chrome for Mac. :/
Oh, if you meant the little arrow ("»") that slides to the right on focus of a plugin, that's just the CSS 3 transition `all 0.1s ease-out` applied to a changing `left` and `opacity`. See  for code.
Thanks for checking out the site!
Thanks for finding this.
I've just thought of two features that would make it even more awesome. Every plugin could have the following two lists:
1. Known to be incompatible with
2. Frequently installed together with
The first list would have to be user-edited, but the second one could theoretically be determined by searching github.
Thanks for pointing this out to us. Will merge when I get home.
so we don't need muck with plug-in help text to read the doc. we can read it here
Example: Completion->'deliminators x 3' shows three yellowish plugins, and then three differently colors plugins. What is the significance of the colors?
Example: Other->'manager x 3' shows no results.
The reason for the mis-match between # of plugins and tags count is the tags count only counts plugins with that tag in the category the tag is nested under. I agree this is quite confusing, and should just make the two views consistent. I'll add an issue to GitHub about it.
Each category has a distinct color.
> Other->'manager x 3' shows no results
Oh, we hide plugin mangers right now, so no results are shown. :( Will fix this to be nicer, thanks.
Alternatively, what would be a better metric. Any ideas?
A better metric is actually trying all the alternatives.
1. You can't have real and complete usage statistics so those metrics are at best meaningless and at worst misleading. Also, something being popular doesn't mean that it will fit one's workflow and needs.
2. Choosing a tool because of its perceived (through meaningless/misleading numbers) is not really the smarter way to build-up one's config.
I'm old school, I work happily with vi, many of the customers I dealt with going back to the mid-90s never gave me a choice. SunOS 4.1.3U5 (ugh). AIX 3. Heady days of Solaris 2.5. Bog standard vi. vim is a bonus, but I'm far from lost when it's just vi. I love macros, but I can still get stuff done if they aren't available. If there's no vi then I'm not lost either, I can work around stuff with awk/sed/etc.
Fundamentally I don't want to have to ever install a bunch of stuff in multiple places to create a common environment for myself. That's a big problem that hasn't been solved yet. I just want it to be the same everywhere, which is why I don't rely on zsh or even ksh, and I just go for the bare minimum.
I've been to too many customers to know that not being able to do stuff within someone else's environment is really not a good thing. I've seen people escorted off customer sites because they've been ineffectual.
But, the biggest takeway is that I've seen too many new employees/interns that are lost without their expected favoured environment, and it's not getting better. vim plugins aside, there's a growing lack of adaptability.
How often are you in a situation where there's no vi!?
1. I don't do much work with these kinds of customers any more as I chose not to go for security clearance (on purpose, as this is a convenient way of avoiding these kinds of customers).