








(5)
Your rating: Now say why...


| Downloads:27,319 |
| Version Downloads:6,361 |
| Type:Development : Editors |
| License:Free |
| Date:31 Aug 2010 |
| Platform:Intel |
| Price:Free |
Overall (Version 7.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
-2
+22
Ayub reviewed on 09 Jun 2008
+18
-2
-1
chiggsy reviewed on 28 Apr 2008
Enough about that. MacVim is an excellent version of gvim, easily the lushest and sexiest one i've ever seen. Vim on os X used to be like firefox, a thing from another place, a foul, alien and misshapen
troll lurking under the bridge named /Applications.
No longer. MacVim is gvim for os X, what an os X program should be like, combined with every optimization that code editing needs and thousands more that are "nice".
Vim has a steep learning curve, like all things Unix. Of course, people program are not stupid, people who program on unix platforms are unafraid of complexity, or at least _were_ not stupid, and _were_ unafraid of complexity. If you are are fearful, why , pay fear's price and fire up some 100 meg IDE and have it hold your hand and change your diapers. If you for some reason, need to have less features because due to some unseen yet crippling inability to teach your muscles to do something, which is a vim requirement, then by golly use something with an "easier learning curve". It's ok. I'm sure your $DEITY will still love you.
Not mine though. We have higher standards, and things to get done, and that's why we'll be using MacVim.
+4
+12
In fact with Vim you really need to learn about initialization files, about how to write a prescription using Vim's style of parameters (is the font option one with an equals sign in it or not?), how to prescribe a given font on a mac in a way that vim understands, etc etc. All of which is achievable, but it's far from being what a Mac user would expect.
Don't get me wrong: I love vim, and use it quite a lot (more from the command line than via MacVim). But I also use TextMate all the time, and there are really good reasons for doing so: it just integrates into Mac OS X a whole heap better than MacVim. Writing your own commands, throwing hooks into the operating system, and so forth is utterly straightforward for anyone with some scripting experience (perl/ruby/python... etc, take your pick).
Paul
-7
+45
When Apple replaced good solid vi with vim in OS X the first thing I did was compile nvi and completely remove that abomination known as "vim".
+2
+21
teksestro reviewed on 15 Mar 2008
Even as recently as a couple of years ago, this kind of time investment was worthwhile, if you were a programmer, who had to spend a lot of your day in front of the computer, juggling different graphical text editors who provide only half of the features set you need for any language. There was nothing this powerful available.
Unfortunately for vi/vim, now there certainly is. Editors like TextMate now have a much gentler learning curve, while still providing the user with a fantastically wide feature set, and an amazing level of customisation. Other editing environments, like Panic's CODA, have concentrated on a different approach, helping you save time not by filling up the editor with thousands of specific text-production features, but by combining the functionality of several pieces of software into one, which saves up even MORE juggling time.
This port of vim is certainly well done. It is stable, and more Mac-like than anything out there. It is still very powerful, but becoming less so, as other editors catch up, and start providing features which vim does not have. For instance: easy project management features (ie., having a folder view) would be a welcoming addition, which would not be too difficult to implement.
Vim does provide some wonderful text-production features, but that is ALL it provides. If these were coupled with some of the easy and time-saving workflow features now present in the majority of other text editors out there, then vim's steep learning curve would be more attractive. As it stands, the vast majority of users will prefer to use tools that are easier to grasp, and which - in the long run - will save them just as much time as vim would.
+1
-1
+1
+1
+2
+2
+1
+15
-2
+4
+4
Personally, I think the icons from the Oxygen (supplying icons for KDE4)/Tango (supplying icons for GNOME) fits nicely in OS X. In fact, I find the subdued look of Tango more attractive than OS X icons.
+1
+22
+125
Most of the icons in the *nix world are available under a Creative Commons type license that allow use in programs.
+20
+1
thevalrus reviewed on 13 Oct 2007
Vim is, of course, the best text editor. This implementation of it does by far the best job I've seen of balancing Vim-ness with Mac-ness; it preserves all the wonderful Vim keybindings but also supplies OS X goodies like multiple windows (which the vastly inferior "Carbon Vim" had led me to believe was downright impossible), pretty tabs, transparency, and plenty of other goodies. I had been juggling TextMate and Carbon Vim, but this new contender puts Vim way out ahead again. I suspect that's exactly where it will stay until TextMate adds modal editing: ha! Not likely.
Long story short: Bjorn Winckler, you're my new hero.
-3
+45
-7
-16
Macdylan rated on 15 Jan 2012
-41
alsar rated on 20 Dec 2011
Kiryph rated on 29 Oct 2011
+31
Amberv rated on 15 Mar 2011
+4
Carlrj rated on 24 Jan 2011