Comment by wilkystyle

Yes! I was very happy to see this. It's simplified my configuration a little bit, but there are still some niceties I would consider as necessary in order to be productive, so I am using Mason, mason-lspconfig (automatically configure and use any lsp servers installed by mason), and Blink for fast and ergonomic autocomplete popup.

IMO Neovim OOB experience isn't quite as nice as what Eglot and completion-preview-mode do for the Emacs OOB experience, but I love that every time I check back in on the latest state of either editor, they are sensibly adding really solid functionality to the core that continuously reduces my reliance on third-party plug-ins!

Undotree functionality was recently merged in too.

What is nvim built-in diff viewer? Is it just `vimdiff` / `nvim -d`?

I'm not a 10+ year user of emacs, and have switched from vim to emacs. But here is my 2 cents if you're willing to take it.

Vim (and variants) is a language for editing first, and an editor second. Most of vim parts from a text editor perspective is found in some way or others in other editors. It's biggest pro is being centered about the vim language of editing. Once you master that, editing is very fast and you can extend the language easily by using external tools. And there's already a good number of integrations through builtin mechanisms and various plugins.

Emacs is a collections of tools for working with textual interfaces. Where Emacs easily wins is how easy it it is to integrate with anything that plays with text, (which is basically everything). The good part is that every plugin (even builtin one) is a software, a library, and a playground at the same time.

I switched to Helix 2 years ago after 28 years of emacs and didn't look back. My emacs config was huge, and I didn't enjoy all the tweaking I was doing to get LSPs to work the way I wanted. I had tried evil mode (and vile before that) without really getting comfortable. I think the Kakoune-style order clicked much better for me than vi descendants. Also, the multiple cursors in Helix work so much better than the equivalent emacs plug-ins. The only thing I really miss is tramp. I liked magit a lot, but jujutsu obsoleted that for me.

For me personally, there's probably too much to put in a comment, but the essence of it is:

- Vim modes are prolific, but they always fall short in some annoying way (Jupyterlab-vim plug-in is so bad it's almost not even worth considering Vim emulation). I inevitably find myself missing the full power of true Neovim, especially with the live find/replace in the buffer, `:cdo`, and things like `:g//norm` (which could be an entire tutorial in itself!)

- Emacs: I have never met another editor (or even piece of software) that is not only so customizable but so designed to be customized. It's really hard to capture it in words, but it's such a comprehensive ecosystem of tools that all are designed to work together incredibly well and designed in such a way that when you make your customizations you can do it in a way that everything still plays really nicely together. For example, I can use Tramp to make my local, fully-customized Emacs edit on a remote filesystem as though my local setup is there, any arbitrary number of SSH hops away, even sudo'd to root on the target machine. I can further leverage the built-in /docker: protocol to edit with my local editor, on that remote machine, as root. Eglot plays nicely so my local editor uses remote LSP servers. dired-mode plays nicely so that I can browse and modify the filesystem on the remote target with my local editor. Because everything is nicely integrated together, pressing M-! to run a shell command while editing a remote buffer will run the shell command on the remote target in the same directory as that remote buffer. Similarly, M-x shell opens a terminal window on the remote target, in the same directory as the remote file I'm editing, as whatever user I have sudo'd to (if applicable). And it does everything with pure SSH, no remote daemon needed. And then there is the customization. Vim/Neovim score very well on the customization front, but I guess the way I would put it is that the difference in philosophy is that Vim/Neovim (and most other customizable software) are applications for which the developers give you a ton of APIs to affect the behavior of an otherwise closed system. With Emacs, by contrast, nearly all of the system is open. There are compiled C functions at the core, but anything in lisp is there for inspecting and modifying in real time while the system is running. And for all the things that are compiled that you cannot affect, there are further paradigms such as the advice system, which allows you to modify built-in behavior by wrapping existing functionality with things like pre- or post- actions (among other things too numerous to get into in a comment). emacs is built with the philosophy that there should never be an area of the software that you don't fully own, control, and have the ability to inspect and understand.

I guess this turned into a classic Emacs-nerd rant about why Emacs is great, but to answer your question the long way:

There's no Vim like (Neo)vim, and if you are an advanced enough (Neo)vim user, everything else falls short in ways that suck.

And there is simply no software I have ever come across like Emacs. It takes a lot of work to make it your own, and I totally get that is not for everyone. But if it is for you, everything else is too limiting.

(maybe to answer your actual question, I've never successfully made the switch. I always come back.)

This is a great question! It's also a really hard one to answer.

When newer developers come to me looking for a recommendation of an editor to use, I don't often recommend Neovim, and I pretty much never recommend Emacs. I do recommend learning Vim motions, however, and my go-to is VS Code with the vscode-neovim plugin (uses actual nvim binary under the hood—no crappy emulation slowness/inaccuracies!)

For me personally, I've never met a situation where my Neovim or Emacs configuration couldn't handle a refactor or some other thing an IDE does. And then with all the other things like search/navigation (Consult+Orderless in Emacs is unparalleled) and working with files, git, or the filesystem (dired-mode in emacs, Oil.nvim for Neovim)... I'm just so much faster in one of those two editors than I am in any IDE. The ability to do everything you need in a single tool using the same paradigm and keybindings and concepts to get all of it done is pretty powerful.

I do also have a nervous aversion to using products that are not fully open source. Probably an OCD fear of losing full control over my editing and development experience.

I imagine Pycharm would still be better at refactoring (extract method/variable, in-line variable, etc.) LSPs are good at renaming, but not much else. There's a plug-in, but it breaks very often.

I think that is an accurate assessment! It's actually the reason I prefer it. I only wanted the ability to expand to treesitter text objects and then contract that selection if desired. I almost wrote it myself but then found that plug-in.

> I also switched from lsp-mode to eglot and it's better. Less fragile.

I agree with this, and it's a big reason why I made the switch myself. I also find myself favoring lightweight (and especially builtin) capabilities, because really large, comprehensive plug-ins tend to have their own paradigms or ways of doing things that break from the super well-designed Emacs system of everything just working together magically.