Helix Editor 25.07(helix-editor.com)
helix-editor.com
Helix Editor 25.07
https://helix-editor.com/news/release-25-07-highlights/
166 comments
For me, the issue isn't that I'm unwilling to learn new things. It's that I cannot use these keybindings anywhere else. Almost all online editors and workstations have some sort of vim keybindings. When I ssh into a Linux machine I can trust it has vim editor. It's like qwerty keyboard, I'm sure that there's better layouts but I just cannot discard the flexibility of being able to jump on most machines and be 99% productive almost instantly.
> I just cannot discard the flexibility of being able to jump on most machines and be 99% productive almost instantly.
You can easily discard it if you can become 200% productive with better defaults on your machine. Like, do you also not use any plugins just because they aren't available on another machine?
Also the keyboard comparison doesn't work since it's not as hard to copy your editor to another machine
You can easily discard it if you can become 200% productive with better defaults on your machine. Like, do you also not use any plugins just because they aren't available on another machine?
Also the keyboard comparison doesn't work since it's not as hard to copy your editor to another machine
> do you also not use any plugins just because they aren't available on another machine?
The vast majority of plugins don't fundamentally change how you interact with text.
The vast majority of plugins don't fundamentally change how you interact with text.
So? Narrow it down to the most useful minority that do, the question still remains
If you narrow it down to that minority that fundamentally changes how you interact with text, then I think the answer is a pretty easy "Yes".
Honestly, I don't think this is a big deal. I use helix as my primary editor, but when I'm on another machine and it only has vi or whatever I just use that and I can mentally switch to using the vim keybinds with little issue. Like sometimes I'll mistakenly `m-i-w-c` instead of `c-i-w` or `d` instead of `x`, but then I just hit `u` and continue.
I know right
To anti-pile-on to the other replies - this is exactly why I haven't given it much of a spin.
I'm glad to find out about evil-helix.
I'm glad to find out about evil-helix.
i didn't find it to be a big issue because helix doesn't have different key bindings as much as it simply has a reverse grammar. If you think of vim as a language to manipulate text objects (which is what it is basically) everything is verb-noun, in helix it's noun-verb. There's a few idiosyncrasies but approaching it that way I got around pretty much immediately.
I'm totally fine with (re)learning new tools, but having given Helix a solid try found the noun-verb model worse; the visual feedback is fun but distracting, particularly when you're moving around reading code. For it you give up things like repeating edits easily (bound as '.' in Vim). There's also a statefulness to Helix's model that isn't present in Vim; whereas in the latter I only have to care about where I _am_ in the file as I'm making my edit, in Helix I have to care about where I've _been_ because that dictates what I've currently got selected. See my other comment for details.
I want an editor with OOTB configuration and a modal editing paradigm (probably Vim's) that isn't constructed around visually synchronizing every edit action. Doing the latter means relinquishing what's good about an editing language, which is that you needn't actively think about edits so much. It's not about speed, but freeing up mental resources to think about the more interesting programming tasks at hand. Editors that demand more attention are doing a worse job.
I want an editor with OOTB configuration and a modal editing paradigm (probably Vim's) that isn't constructed around visually synchronizing every edit action. Doing the latter means relinquishing what's good about an editing language, which is that you needn't actively think about edits so much. It's not about speed, but freeing up mental resources to think about the more interesting programming tasks at hand. Editors that demand more attention are doing a worse job.
[deleted]
surprised helix doesn't support the . key - is that incompatible with its interaction model somehow?
Yes, its model is that you make a selection and then act on it. After the action happens there's nothing selected. The editor can't infer your intent in making the selection, so there's no reasonable notion of repeating the last edit. You can separately repeat the last motion or last action, but not the whole edit---which of course isn't as useful.
Helix would _ideally_ like you to tell it ahead-of-time everywhere you're going to make an edit by selecting all the edit points with multiple cursors, without a great option to fire edits on the fly. Ironically I found this worse for visual feedback when making larger edits---where it's most needed---because there are usually edits happening off screen, instead of only at the point of the cursor (where the latter can be easily repeated).
It ends up feeling less interactive and more like I'm using a batch editor due to this, which (I think?) was not its intention.
Helix would _ideally_ like you to tell it ahead-of-time everywhere you're going to make an edit by selecting all the edit points with multiple cursors, without a great option to fire edits on the fly. Ironically I found this worse for visual feedback when making larger edits---where it's most needed---because there are usually edits happening off screen, instead of only at the point of the cursor (where the latter can be easily repeated).
It ends up feeling less interactive and more like I'm using a batch editor due to this, which (I think?) was not its intention.
In that situation, what I do is essentially save a macro (recording the selection and the edit) with `Q` and then `q` becomes my equivalent to `.`
Good note; there's almost always a (somewhat less convenient) workaround. I find the visual feedback that induces these compromises actively annoying, so don't want to give up anything for it. Different strokes, of course!
Hmm
The existence of a repeat or “magic” key is one of the more interesting developments alternative keyboard layouts designs. The use case is slightly different of course.
But as an extremely heavy user of vim repeat and macros for the last two decades, it strikes me as a wee bit audacious to so completely dismiss its utility.
But as an extremely heavy user of vim repeat and macros for the last two decades, it strikes me as a wee bit audacious to so completely dismiss its utility.
As someone who used vim (and then neovim) for some two decades, I didn’t find it hard to adapt to helix, and now vastly prefer it.
I did edit several modal behaviours but always stick to helix logic.
Things like the multiple selections and LSP support out of the box make it super worthy, aided by its fantastic help that when you press a multi-step character it shows a little hint of possible next options, including your own custom actions.
I do on occasion need to use bare vim setups, and while some commands have been remapped in my head, I still remember enough for quick edits.
I did edit several modal behaviours but always stick to helix logic.
Things like the multiple selections and LSP support out of the box make it super worthy, aided by its fantastic help that when you press a multi-step character it shows a little hint of possible next options, including your own custom actions.
I do on occasion need to use bare vim setups, and while some commands have been remapped in my head, I still remember enough for quick edits.
Helix is adding a Scheme for programmable configuration.
With programmability, you can have a lot more state and contextual behavior. We get this kind of fine-grained stuff in Emacs with repeat maps, transient maps, heuristic DWIM behavior, state tracking per-buffer etc.
As LLMs lower the cost of having that 8th or 9th language, you can expect programmable tools to float up in the market.
With programmability, you can have a lot more state and contextual behavior. We get this kind of fine-grained stuff in Emacs with repeat maps, transient maps, heuristic DWIM behavior, state tracking per-buffer etc.
As LLMs lower the cost of having that 8th or 9th language, you can expect programmable tools to float up in the market.
Omg. Vim keybindings is the single blocker for me to try helix.
It means that it's possible to add vim support for Helix but they don't want to?
It means that it's possible to add vim support for Helix but they don't want to?
Sure, why wouldn’t it be? Plenty of programs have Vim keybindings. The challenge is matching the behavior perfectly 1-1.
This is where vim keybinds fall short every time. I do appreciate the effort, and have zero expectations about a one to one match, but the moment I do something out of habit and an editor doesn’t do what I expect, in “vim mode”, it breaks the illusion.
Honestly most implementations are just the basic navigation keys and a couple of edit commands. The basic navigation in Helix is the same as Vim so the ubiquitous feeling continues.
[deleted]
Same same.
I love Helix, I highly recommend it to anyone who never quite got on board with vim but likes the idea of it. I found it much easier to learn and use, and it is distinguished from other vimlikes in that it's got a useful starting configuration.
I really really like it. I honestly think they should wrap it in a GUI with some conveniences like a mouse based file browser and it can compete well with vscode.
Zed has Helix keybindings now!
https://zed.dev/
https://zed.dev/
Even as someone who uses both Helix and Zed, I don’t find Zed’s Helix keybindings very useful. There is still too much basic stuff missing. The biggest one to me personally is that the “gw” command does not seem to be implemented.
Not quite yet ...
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/33580
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/discussions/33580
Have you found them to work well and be consistent? I've been a helix user for a couple years now, and I found Zed's helix keybindings to be inaccurate. Either that or I have some config options set that were confounding them. Curious how your experience with them has been?
Off-topic, but kudos to Zed as being the first editor to actually allow me do Emacs keybindings which don't suck. Requires configuration, but overall it works and I use it alongside my regular Emacs. Feels great!
Very nice to see a text editor that is very capable, yet still minimal and not focused on including a bunch of useless AI features.
I agree. I can't fit this on my hard drive. I've had this 386 for 30 years. Why should I have to upgrade it just for some text editor?
Same. Or — just an idea — maybe it is time to kickstart an adapter so that we can plug a 386 into a LGA 1700 socket? A little underclocking, instruction translation, voltage conversion and presto.
111mb is bloat apparently in a time where storage is in the terabytes.
111 MB for a text editor is acceptable? I mean I get it, "we" are getting conditioned to it, but...
The editor is 10mb. It's the grammar files that are represent the bulk, and those are optional.
And yes. Complaining about 100mb nowadays is ridiculous. You probably have larger logfiles sitting somewhere in disk doing nothing right now, regardless of your OS.
And yes. Complaining about 100mb nowadays is ridiculous. You probably have larger logfiles sitting somewhere in disk doing nothing right now, regardless of your OS.
And it’s a 10MB static binary I can just drop into ~/.local/bin and have Just Work(tm)
I know, I was talking about a hypothetical text editor being 100 MB (without grammar files).
And those log files can be easily wiped or rotated (i.e. compressed, which can greatly reduce their size), as they should. You do not do the same with your other files, do you?
And those log files can be easily wiped or rotated (i.e. compressed, which can greatly reduce their size), as they should. You do not do the same with your other files, do you?
Why the down-vote? You don't rotate your logs? Thought it is commonplace. Rotating logs includes compressing old ones. Or are your log files actually over 100 MB? Why? What are you printing? Output of "yes"? :D
As someone mentioned, Emacs is over 100 MB, so it does not have to be hypothetical. That said, I use emacs (and vim) interchangeably and I have nothing against it. I have LibreOffice, too, which is also a behemoth, but so is Haskell with its modules that I see getting updated regularly. In any case, I still prefer KISS and the fewer bloat as possible.
As someone mentioned, Emacs is over 100 MB, so it does not have to be hypothetical. That said, I use emacs (and vim) interchangeably and I have nothing against it. I have LibreOffice, too, which is also a behemoth, but so is Haskell with its modules that I see getting updated regularly. In any case, I still prefer KISS and the fewer bloat as possible.
Long forgotten the times back in the days during the Great Editor Wars when Emacs was shunned as an acronym for "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping". The youth of today ...
Emacs binary download page pointed me to Windows, but for comparison:
141MB: emacs-30.1-nodeps.zip
75MB: emacs-30.1-installer.exe (better compression? Contents seem similar)
27MB helix-25.07-x86_64-windows.zip
So there's still an Emacs distinction, it seems
(*not that these size differences matter in practice -- helix's "bulk" is all in compiled language grammars, each of which is not loaded unless you use the language.)
141MB: emacs-30.1-nodeps.zip
75MB: emacs-30.1-installer.exe (better compression? Contents seem similar)
27MB helix-25.07-x86_64-windows.zip
So there's still an Emacs distinction, it seems
(*not that these size differences matter in practice -- helix's "bulk" is all in compiled language grammars, each of which is not loaded unless you use the language.)
(replying to myself)
Alpine package sizes:
- helix 10.3MiB (+ 3 dependencies: musl, libgcc, sh)
- emacs 14.5MiB (+ 1 dependency: musl)
- neovim 18.7MiB (+ 9 dependencies musl, lua, tree-sitter, libint, libluv, unibilium, utf8proc, libuv, libluajit))
So it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for popular cli editors, if you're worried about smaller environments.
Alpine package sizes:
- helix 10.3MiB (+ 3 dependencies: musl, libgcc, sh)
- emacs 14.5MiB (+ 1 dependency: musl)
- neovim 18.7MiB (+ 9 dependencies musl, lua, tree-sitter, libint, libluv, unibilium, utf8proc, libuv, libluajit))
So it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for popular cli editors, if you're worried about smaller environments.
I am old enough to remember that. :D
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I mean a base Mac Mini in 2025 comes with 256GB of storage. Some storage is still damn expensive.
But regardless, if someone were to only ever installing Helix on their system, you might have a point. But you probably want to install many applications and if every applications starts wasting storage, you will soon run out of space.
But regardless, if someone were to only ever installing Helix on their system, you might have a point. But you probably want to install many applications and if every applications starts wasting storage, you will soon run out of space.
Yes, but 111MB is .04% of 256GB. Install a hundred such "wasteful" apps and you're up to a whole 4% of that storage.
Almost all the size is language grammars, which are optional and removable. Some distros like Alpine make them separate packages.
But for desktop use, I think it's a good default to have everything "just work" out-of-the-box, because 110mb is nothing for typical developer machines.
But for desktop use, I think it's a good default to have everything "just work" out-of-the-box, because 110mb is nothing for typical developer machines.
Have you considered that professional developers who can afford expensive computers are not the only ones using a text editor?
Absolutely, I used one for many years before I was professional.
Out of curiosity, what hardware are you picturing those people running it on?
I've run Helix on a Daylight computer, which has a deliberately underpowered CPU (MediaTek Helio G99) and it's incredibly fast/snappy. 110mb is still near-trivial on the 128GB storage.
If you're (validly) worried about bloated software, note that Alpine's helix package is 10.3MB, which is smaller than their Neovim or Emacs packages. Individual language files are small (python is ~500kb uncompressed), there are just hundreds of supported languages. But installed ones are not loaded unless you edit the language.
Out of curiosity, what hardware are you picturing those people running it on?
I've run Helix on a Daylight computer, which has a deliberately underpowered CPU (MediaTek Helio G99) and it's incredibly fast/snappy. 110mb is still near-trivial on the 128GB storage.
If you're (validly) worried about bloated software, note that Alpine's helix package is 10.3MB, which is smaller than their Neovim or Emacs packages. Individual language files are small (python is ~500kb uncompressed), there are just hundreds of supported languages. But installed ones are not loaded unless you edit the language.
> As an example, here's the official Alpine package: https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/h...
> It comes with no grammars installed and it's up to the user to install what they need ... and the grammars can be shared with other editors.
> It comes with no grammars installed and it's up to the user to install what they need ... and the grammars can be shared with other editors.
Congrats!
I am happy for helix but i don't think it's a good fit for me.
I use Neovim. It does what i want it to do. It's one of the best available options. But, i am not completely satisfied with it. I personally want an editor with following:
* Modern codebase. Written from scratch.
* VIM Keybindings: I have muscle memory of Vim. I would like to use Vim Keybindings in my editor. I don't want to use any other keybindings even if they are proclaimed to be better. It must walk like vim and quack like vim.
* Good defaults. I hate configuring a lot. Neovim requires configuring a lot and need not always provide good defaults if it provided. Helix might have gotten this right.
* Based on Treesitter. Better they run Treesitter parsers as a WASM in WASM runtime just like how Zed and latest Neovim do.
* Extension System. But, I don't really favor lua, js or scheme. They just aren't my cup of tea. Maybe make it a wasm module with only necessary functions exposed to it. And configuration of those plugins in non turning complete configuration language.
* TUI and optional GUI
* LSP,DAP and Snippets support built-in(along with auto complete/suggestions, UI for Testing and Debugging)
* Oil.nvim like FS as buffer built-in
* Telescope/FZF-lua style Search built-in
* Git integration built-in (Maybe magit/neogit like GIT UI is welcome)
* Flash.nvim style Treesitter based Code AST Manipulation and Jump-to by label built-in
* Macros and Multi cursors
* Optional Cursor Style AI integration (Chat UI)
I am happy for helix but i don't think it's a good fit for me.
I use Neovim. It does what i want it to do. It's one of the best available options. But, i am not completely satisfied with it. I personally want an editor with following:
* Modern codebase. Written from scratch.
* VIM Keybindings: I have muscle memory of Vim. I would like to use Vim Keybindings in my editor. I don't want to use any other keybindings even if they are proclaimed to be better. It must walk like vim and quack like vim.
* Good defaults. I hate configuring a lot. Neovim requires configuring a lot and need not always provide good defaults if it provided. Helix might have gotten this right.
* Based on Treesitter. Better they run Treesitter parsers as a WASM in WASM runtime just like how Zed and latest Neovim do.
* Extension System. But, I don't really favor lua, js or scheme. They just aren't my cup of tea. Maybe make it a wasm module with only necessary functions exposed to it. And configuration of those plugins in non turning complete configuration language.
* TUI and optional GUI
* LSP,DAP and Snippets support built-in(along with auto complete/suggestions, UI for Testing and Debugging)
* Oil.nvim like FS as buffer built-in
* Telescope/FZF-lua style Search built-in
* Git integration built-in (Maybe magit/neogit like GIT UI is welcome)
* Flash.nvim style Treesitter based Code AST Manipulation and Jump-to by label built-in
* Macros and Multi cursors
* Optional Cursor Style AI integration (Chat UI)
> I have muscle memory of Vim.
I respect the preferences of others but I think that most people overfit for muscle memory. I've switched OSes/editors/IDEs many times in my career. Every time, the first day or two I feel like "This is the worst fucking thing ever, I can't even type God damn it I want to set the computer on fire and become a farmer."
But... that passes. After a couple of days, I have new muscle memory and it's fine. It would be a shame to let a few days of discomfort control which software I use when software varies in its other capabilities so much more widely than just keybindings.
I respect the preferences of others but I think that most people overfit for muscle memory. I've switched OSes/editors/IDEs many times in my career. Every time, the first day or two I feel like "This is the worst fucking thing ever, I can't even type God damn it I want to set the computer on fire and become a farmer."
But... that passes. After a couple of days, I have new muscle memory and it's fine. It would be a shame to let a few days of discomfort control which software I use when software varies in its other capabilities so much more widely than just keybindings.
But there is only so much room for muscle memory or context to switch between. I tried Helix for a while, got used to it and I really liked it, especially the noun verb order being different from vim. Seeing what you have selected before performing the action. But for me the problem is that vim is everywhere I go or will eventually end up. All my servers have vim. Every server I need to randomly debug has vim or vi. So my muscle memory for vim keeps getting refreshed as well. And switching between the two constantly is just a pain. I could take along Helix to all these servers. But that is not practical nor do I need all the features Helix uses. Or I would miss specific feature which I then also have to bring along.
Now I’ve settled with Zed as desktop editor/IDE and still use vim on remotes. The context switch between a desktop app en cli is big enough that it’s never a problem. I don’t even use the vim bindings in Zed.
Now I’ve settled with Zed as desktop editor/IDE and still use vim on remotes. The context switch between a desktop app en cli is big enough that it’s never a problem. I don’t even use the vim bindings in Zed.
> But there is only so much room for muscle memory or context to switch between.
People can learn to juggle plates while riding a unicycle. They can play prog rock on two-necked guitars. A handful of keybindings is like a drop in the bucket for what our nervous system is capable of encoding.
People can learn to juggle plates while riding a unicycle. They can play prog rock on two-necked guitars. A handful of keybindings is like a drop in the bucket for what our nervous system is capable of encoding.
Fear and doubt are mighty enemies. “Did I make the right choice?” haunts us all.
But when exploration is (temporarily at least) an end in itself, trying a new sword, moat-digging technique, or trebuchet mechanism is inherently satisfying.
But when exploration is (temporarily at least) an end in itself, trying a new sword, moat-digging technique, or trebuchet mechanism is inherently satisfying.
i cold turkey switched to colemak. i can go between that and qwerty. i went from t9 to full thumb typing. i use 5 different keyboards (with different custom layouts) daily.
the human brain can do all this and more if you let it and deal with a small amount of lag in building the neurons up
the human brain can do all this and more if you let it and deal with a small amount of lag in building the neurons up
i know many very smart people that insist that their muscle memory makes it impossible to switch editors or shells.
i respect the perspective of “i like my tools and have no reason to switch”.
what i feel is constantly missed if the understanding that your regular tools are literally one command away. learning something new doesn’t mean you can’t also take advantage of your muscle memory as necessary.
i respect the perspective of “i like my tools and have no reason to switch”.
what i feel is constantly missed if the understanding that your regular tools are literally one command away. learning something new doesn’t mean you can’t also take advantage of your muscle memory as necessary.
personally i just find verb noun editing a tiny bit more fun than noun verb.
you craft an incantation that either does everything right or backfires. there’s no feedback while said incantation is being constructed.
practically, noun verb is much better of course.
you craft an incantation that either does everything right or backfires. there’s no feedback while said incantation is being constructed.
practically, noun verb is much better of course.
I think noun-verb is worse; I'm unsure where the idea comes from that Helix's (or Kakoune's) editing model is better. Bear with my short rant. :-)
I don't want or need pre-emptive visual feedback on every keystroke, because it's a tool I use every day. I want an editing language that allows me to develop a mental model of it, so that I can _avoid_ round-tripping most edit actions visually. The primary advantage of the Vi editing language has never been speed (though that tends to be a secondary one), it's that it saves you from thinking about editing. Visual feedback also adds noise; it's especially distracting when you're moving around reading code. It's not an automatic win except when you're learning. Finally, if I really need it, I'm using a modal editor! I can simply switch into visual mode for complex edits. That's the modal solution.
And in exchange for (ime, annoying) visual feedback I have to give up things like the repeat last edit '.' key, and operator pending mode (see :omap), and more... which isn't palatable to me. Of course, everyone works differently; different strokes. But it's not obviously better, in a lot of ways.
I _am_ envious of the complete default configuration Helix has. Though it seems like that's planned from Neovim in the near future, alongside multicursor (filed under 'super macros'), looking at their roadmap.
I don't want or need pre-emptive visual feedback on every keystroke, because it's a tool I use every day. I want an editing language that allows me to develop a mental model of it, so that I can _avoid_ round-tripping most edit actions visually. The primary advantage of the Vi editing language has never been speed (though that tends to be a secondary one), it's that it saves you from thinking about editing. Visual feedback also adds noise; it's especially distracting when you're moving around reading code. It's not an automatic win except when you're learning. Finally, if I really need it, I'm using a modal editor! I can simply switch into visual mode for complex edits. That's the modal solution.
And in exchange for (ime, annoying) visual feedback I have to give up things like the repeat last edit '.' key, and operator pending mode (see :omap), and more... which isn't palatable to me. Of course, everyone works differently; different strokes. But it's not obviously better, in a lot of ways.
I _am_ envious of the complete default configuration Helix has. Though it seems like that's planned from Neovim in the near future, alongside multicursor (filed under 'super macros'), looking at their roadmap.
I strongly agree.
I have mixed feelings about Neovim adopting multicursor. Doesn't setting multiple cursors and then acting on them belong in the noun-verb camp? Unless you call it multivisual, of course!
I have mixed feelings about Neovim adopting multicursor. Doesn't setting multiple cursors and then acting on them belong in the noun-verb camp? Unless you call it multivisual, of course!
damn. noun verb makes spell casting visually noisy and... as if you didn't know your spells and havent yet adopted 100% typing accuracy --- the feedback (visual noise) just makes you weak anyways. just `u` and helix inherently loses `.`
Its not very clear to me which of these Helix hasnt hit. To me it looks like Helix is very close to what you are looking for.
* VIM Keybindings: I have muscle memory of Vim.
Helix is strongly inspired by vim, but it is not attempting to be a drop-in replacement, and it is not possible to configure it to have the same behavior as vim with custom key-bindings because there are many things that work fundamentally differently between the two editors.
Helix is strongly inspired by vim, but it is not attempting to be a drop-in replacement, and it is not possible to configure it to have the same behavior as vim with custom key-bindings because there are many things that work fundamentally differently between the two editors.
FYI (for OP): check this fork out https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix
It's a soft fork trying to catch up with the main codebase. It feels like a second class citizen. Features introduced in Helix might not be intended for usage with vim keybindings anyway.
Its keybindings aren't identical to vim. They're very similar in many places, but are also different in quite common things like deleting lines etc. (dd vs xd)
[deleted]
>list of requirements
So basically Neovim, but swapping out Lua for something else.
And with better defaults akin to Helix
Love Helix. Congrats. Good looking default theme. Sensible defaults. Literally install and use, no configuration needed. Well I haven't replaced my IDE with it , but set alias of vi to it and made it as $EDITOR for all quick cli edits. So now whenever I need to do quick debugging edits in k9s, it calls for Helix.
I really wanted to like Helix, and for the most part did, but there is something about the way undo works that just feels incredibly wrong to me. What it wants to undo doesn't always seem logical and always undoes too much. I've lost work because of it in the past.
There are two things that consciously bug me about undo,
* When you press undo, and the content to be undone isn't on the screen, it will jump your screen to the relevant section (good) but also with that same keypress actually undo the content (bad). Other editors, if the content is not on the screen, will not perform the undo action unless the content is actually visible. When I press undo in Helix, I'm always taking a moment to figure out what has actually changed because of this.
* This is a conscious decision by the Helix creator, so it's unlikely to change, but undo is not granular enough. It's chunked per insert mode operation. So you could type the entirety of a tale of two cities while in insert mode, you could be in insert mode for 30 minutes, and then go back to normal mode -- at this point, if you press undo once, the entirety of what you did in insert mode is undone. There is a feature where you can explicitly give the editor a save point for undo, and you're expected to press the key manually at your desired undo points. I really don't like this at all. I have bound some keys such as spacebar to this save point, so I get more granular undo, but this has some consequences such as clearing any selections that are currently present. I couldn't figure out a way to fix this without any side effects unfortunately.
I like Helix a lot, and I have no intention of changing editors, but there are some default behaviors which I think are absolutely baffling, and the undo granularity + expectation that you manually save checkpoints for undo is one of them.
* When you press undo, and the content to be undone isn't on the screen, it will jump your screen to the relevant section (good) but also with that same keypress actually undo the content (bad). Other editors, if the content is not on the screen, will not perform the undo action unless the content is actually visible. When I press undo in Helix, I'm always taking a moment to figure out what has actually changed because of this.
* This is a conscious decision by the Helix creator, so it's unlikely to change, but undo is not granular enough. It's chunked per insert mode operation. So you could type the entirety of a tale of two cities while in insert mode, you could be in insert mode for 30 minutes, and then go back to normal mode -- at this point, if you press undo once, the entirety of what you did in insert mode is undone. There is a feature where you can explicitly give the editor a save point for undo, and you're expected to press the key manually at your desired undo points. I really don't like this at all. I have bound some keys such as spacebar to this save point, so I get more granular undo, but this has some consequences such as clearing any selections that are currently present. I couldn't figure out a way to fix this without any side effects unfortunately.
I like Helix a lot, and I have no intention of changing editors, but there are some default behaviors which I think are absolutely baffling, and the undo granularity + expectation that you manually save checkpoints for undo is one of them.
> Other editors, if the content is not on the screen, will not perform the undo action unless the content is actually visible.
Really? What editor does this? Vim/Neovim definitely will undo the change with a single 'u' press, and every GUI editor I've ever used will undo the change immediately with a single ctrl+z.
Really? What editor does this? Vim/Neovim definitely will undo the change with a single 'u' press, and every GUI editor I've ever used will undo the change immediately with a single ctrl+z.
Ah, thanks for the correction. I'm wrong on how common this is.
I just tested CLion, VS Code, and Sublime Text. I thought all three behaved as described, but only CLion did. I wish it was more common though, I find it a lot more intuitive and clear on what's happening.
I just tested CLion, VS Code, and Sublime Text. I thought all three behaved as described, but only CLion did. I wish it was more common though, I find it a lot more intuitive and clear on what's happening.
Huh, that's interesting. I've only used VSCode and Sublime, never CLion. I'm honestly not sure how I'd feel going the other way, but I could see the behavior being annoying if you're not expecting it.
[deleted]
Just tried Goland and it works the way you describe. Emacs is immediate restore.
CLion and Goland are both JetBrains IDEs, so no surprise they use the same mechanism. FWIW, I like it and think it's preferable.
What happens if you can't fit all changes into one screen? Does it jump to a random /last edit but undoes all the changes?
By the way, I find this forced move rather annoying sometimes, especially when I want to jump back and forth (undo/redo) and this behavior blocks visual comparison by constantly shifting the view
By the way, I find this forced move rather annoying sometimes, especially when I want to jump back and forth (undo/redo) and this behavior blocks visual comparison by constantly shifting the view
[deleted]
I agree the undo is sometimes a bit weird, as is the “repeat last command”. However, the rest of it is so nice that I keep Helix as my main editor.
How did you lose work, though, could you not redo?
How did you lose work, though, could you not redo?
I think I panicked at the amount it has undone and then in my attempt to redo, made a change and got myself into a mess with the history. It was quite early on in my time with it.
[deleted]
I'd love for Helix to implement a "Kakoune mode". I develop on Windows at work, where Kakoune is not ideal, so Helix seems like it'd be a perfect fit, except I can't get over the keybindings. Its keybinding philosophy encourages verbosity instead of Kakoune's terseness, which bothers me more than it probably should, and as far as I can tell its keymap configuration isn't yet powerful enough to emulate Kakoune well.
Vim's inconsistent keybinds and behavior are what pushed me to Kakoune — which I find has more consistent and elegant bindings and behavior — in the first place, and Helix feels like a step backwards on that front.
Vim's inconsistent keybinds and behavior are what pushed me to Kakoune — which I find has more consistent and elegant bindings and behavior — in the first place, and Helix feels like a step backwards on that front.
Heh. A "post-modern" editor. The second best joke since Fish's "Finally a command line shell for the 90s".
And looking at the video it seems to be tui based. Nice. Gave me Emacs tui vibes.
And looking at the video it seems to be tui based. Nice. Gave me Emacs tui vibes.
I terribly need a vim-like with Helix all-in-one comprehensiveness. Neovim distributions are too loosely coupled and always have some odd sharp edge. Vim and its interfaces needs some rethinking anyway, but keep Action-Object modal orientation.
Maybe Evil-Helix[0] is what's called for. Still seems like it has lots of edges.
[0]https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix
[0]https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix
What is Action-Object modal orientation?
Yeah that's not a good way of describing, its more like Verb-Direction-Subject, e.g. `d3f(` means "delete up to the 3rd opening paren"; `2f.` means "move cursor to the 2nd found '.' character"; but there are exceptions when the subject is implicit, like `5j` means "Move down 5 physical lines".
Helix reverses bindings so that subject is first and verb is second
Helix reverses bindings so that subject is first and verb is second
Been using helix for over a year (mostly Elixir development) after a decade of (neo)vim, very happy so far! My config file is like 10 lines long :D
Congrats on the release!
Very detailed explanations. I learned a bunch about the syntax highlighting and code understanding in Helix & friends just from reading this.
All the tree-sitter features and datastructures seem ideal for a query language to be bolted on - something that generalises beyond symbol search or “find all references” - guess since there’s an API this is a DSL for writing queries about your code.
Does something like this exist?
All the tree-sitter features and datastructures seem ideal for a query language to be bolted on - something that generalises beyond symbol search or “find all references” - guess since there’s an API this is a DSL for writing queries about your code.
Does something like this exist?
zed uses tree-sitter and has a powerful query engine (dsl is lisp scheme): https://zed.dev/blog/syntax-aware-editing#tree-queries
Does zed have anything like the 'locals' query that Helix has added in this version, according to TFA?
Helix is the most interesting editor I've seen in a while. Very sane configuration — my config includes just one line to change the default theme to something with more contrast.
No "AI" shit pushed down your throat, and it takes the vim idea of applying actions to blocks of code, and swaps them around — you first select the code, and then apply an action to it. So you get visual feedback before doing the action and can clearly see what's going to be changed without having to spam visual mode all the time.
There was a decent article recently which explains some of the things I like in it also:
https://herecomesthemoon.net/2025/06/i-like-helix/
No "AI" shit pushed down your throat, and it takes the vim idea of applying actions to blocks of code, and swaps them around — you first select the code, and then apply an action to it. So you get visual feedback before doing the action and can clearly see what's going to be changed without having to spam visual mode all the time.
There was a decent article recently which explains some of the things I like in it also:
https://herecomesthemoon.net/2025/06/i-like-helix/
It looks very interesting and I'd love to support it, but editors that must be modal are difficult for me to use, personally. Editors that are not modal can be made modal, but can modal editors be made non-modal?
Have you ever used a modal editor? It takes the smallest bit of brain training to adapt, but feels more logical for long form coding. I spend a lot more time reading code than writing. Having more tools to grep/highlight/move text in one mode is quite productive.
People who give vim some time split in two camps:
- how can you use a modal editor!?
- how can you use a nonmodal editor!?
- how can you use a modal editor!?
- how can you use a nonmodal editor!?
I used vim for a few years about 15 years ago, yes.
It's not that it's difficult for me, it's that it's unnatural for me.
Different people's minds work differently.
It's not that it's difficult for me, it's that it's unnatural for me.
Different people's minds work differently.
It is wild to me that you could use vim for years and not like the modal style. To each their own, I would have bounced to emacs.
I went from vim to emacs and used that for a few years, then moved to VS Code for the next 10 years or so. It's showing its age a bit lately, so I'm sure I'll try another one soon, which is why I looked at Helix. But I'm very glad there are very different editors for very different types of minds, just like how there are different ways to indent/format code. Programmers do not have one-size-fits-all minds, and we shouldn't design anything assuming they do/should. (Looking at you, Golang.)
For some reason Emacs veterans keep waging wars against modality without acknowledging that Emacs is inherently modal - key chords create temporary modes, transient keymaps maintain states, the minibuffer is a distinct mode, and even fundamental concepts like the mark-active state and recursive editing demonstrate that Emacs has always embraced context-dependent behavior rather than being truly modeless.
Oh, wow. I really enjoy modal editors, especially the Kakoune model seen in Helix and meow-mode for Emacs but I could never put it into words why I actually preferred them.
Yep, that's precisely it.
Yep, that's precisely it.
Modal editors can be (in principle) made non-modal by changing keybinds to combos that change modes behind your back, so you'll keep insert mode as your primary one. So strictly speaking, non-modal editors are the ones that force you into only one style
But not sure real editors are as capable since some can have adverse actions on mode changes (e.g. resetting your selection or changing undo stack etc)
But not sure real editors are as capable since some can have adverse actions on mode changes (e.g. resetting your selection or changing undo stack etc)
Yup, I know what you're talking about. Evil-mode in Emacs actually adds so many nice features and simplifies so many things outside of text editing, yet I've never seen anyone who dislikes modal editing actually install evil-mode and keep it disabled by default. Them Emacs veteran "nevervimmers" are missing out.
I wouldn't want to go from modal to non-modal.
In fact, I have a hard time editing in web browser textareas and Google Docs because of the muscle memory of vimlike keybindings and how I've associated them with tactile keyboards. (Smartphones and tablets don't give me this problem since they feel different, but laptop/desktop Google Docs editing throws me for a loop.)
Once you learn, modal is the way to go. It feels like playing a piano over an AST. It's so elegant for code and syntax trees.
I've been using vim keybindings in vim and vimlikes (JetBrains IDEs and VS Code) for nearly twenty years now. I learned most of it within just my first three months and have picked up additional surface area every year. I would still call myself a novice relative to vim masters, but you can get a ton of value from the basic movements and chords and occasional macros. All that to say, the learning curve might look steep, but it's shallower than you think and certainly well worth it.
The only reason I'd see non-modal being useful in a modal editor is as a crunch to learn and make the onboarding smoother. But you'd probably still want the first steps to be modal anyway, so I'm not sure it would provide much value.
Just jump in. It feels weird and slow at first, but let it grow on you. It pays dividends.
In fact, I have a hard time editing in web browser textareas and Google Docs because of the muscle memory of vimlike keybindings and how I've associated them with tactile keyboards. (Smartphones and tablets don't give me this problem since they feel different, but laptop/desktop Google Docs editing throws me for a loop.)
Once you learn, modal is the way to go. It feels like playing a piano over an AST. It's so elegant for code and syntax trees.
I've been using vim keybindings in vim and vimlikes (JetBrains IDEs and VS Code) for nearly twenty years now. I learned most of it within just my first three months and have picked up additional surface area every year. I would still call myself a novice relative to vim masters, but you can get a ton of value from the basic movements and chords and occasional macros. All that to say, the learning curve might look steep, but it's shallower than you think and certainly well worth it.
The only reason I'd see non-modal being useful in a modal editor is as a crunch to learn and make the onboarding smoother. But you'd probably still want the first steps to be modal anyway, so I'm not sure it would provide much value.
Just jump in. It feels weird and slow at first, but let it grow on you. It pays dividends.
I think it really does come down to taste. I learned how to do modal text editing. I believe it is a fine and efficient way to edit. So is non-modal. So is mouse editing. I still prefer the emacs way of doing things
> I still prefer the emacs way of doing things
Emacs was always modal. Emacs is inherently a modal text editor - keychords are modal, transients are modal, isearch is modal, repeat-mode is modality. The only thing the idea of vim-navigation brings on top of all that is a simple, structured and memorable language/grammar to deal with modality, that's all what it is.
Both approaches are modal; Vi just codified its modality into a more learnable, linguistic system while Emacs distributed its modality across context-sensitive mini-languages.
Emacs has this same power scattered throughout - the kill-ring, rectangle operations, keyboard macros - but Vi's genius was packaging it into a coherent, immediately graspable system that feels less like using a computer and more like speaking a concise language about text.
The best thing about learning that language is that you can apply it anywhere where keyboard input is still relevant - your browser, your terminal, your entire system - e.g. you can control your music, jump between apps, navigate between windows, etc. using only the home row keys.
Emacs was always modal. Emacs is inherently a modal text editor - keychords are modal, transients are modal, isearch is modal, repeat-mode is modality. The only thing the idea of vim-navigation brings on top of all that is a simple, structured and memorable language/grammar to deal with modality, that's all what it is.
Both approaches are modal; Vi just codified its modality into a more learnable, linguistic system while Emacs distributed its modality across context-sensitive mini-languages.
Emacs has this same power scattered throughout - the kill-ring, rectangle operations, keyboard macros - but Vi's genius was packaging it into a coherent, immediately graspable system that feels less like using a computer and more like speaking a concise language about text.
The best thing about learning that language is that you can apply it anywhere where keyboard input is still relevant - your browser, your terminal, your entire system - e.g. you can control your music, jump between apps, navigate between windows, etc. using only the home row keys.
> The best thing about learning that language is that you can apply it anywhere where keyboard input is still relevant - your browser, your terminal, your entire system - e.g. you can control your music, jump between apps, navigate between windows, etc. using only the home row keys.
I guess maybe with some configuration? A lot of emacs keybindings work out of the box in most text boxes I can think of, including this one I'm typing into right now.
If the justification about VI is that it's more learnable, then that's hardly a reason for me to switch - I've already learned emacs.
Although I do think it's a stretch to call it "immediately graspable"
I guess maybe with some configuration? A lot of emacs keybindings work out of the box in most text boxes I can think of, including this one I'm typing into right now.
If the justification about VI is that it's more learnable, then that's hardly a reason for me to switch - I've already learned emacs.
Although I do think it's a stretch to call it "immediately graspable"
> that's hardly a reason for me to switch - I've already learned emacs.
Most people think of keyboard input as a linear, one-dimensional approach to text editing, that's what you're doing here. Vim-style navigation offers something fundamentally different - a spatial "language" that maps directly to how we conceptualize our workspace.
Consider window management in vanilla Emacs:
- C-x 2 splits horizontally (mnemonic: "two windows")
- C-x 3 splits vertically (less intuitive—why 3?)
- C-x 4 becomes a prefix for file operations in other windows
The logic breaks down quickly. There's no consistent mental model connecting these commands. C-x 4 abandons the splitting metaphor entirely, becoming a namespace for "other window" operations rather than a window count.
Doom Emacs's vim-inspired approach creates a coherent spatial language:
- SPC w s - split
- SPC w v - vertical split
- SPC w h/j/k/l - jump left/down/up/right
The hjkl directional keys mirror vim's movement commands, creating a consistent spatial metaphor. Your fingers learn to "think" in terms of physical direction rather than arbitrary key combinations.
This spatial approach transforms window management from memorizing disconnected shortcuts into developing spatial intuition. Instead of thinking "what was that split command again?", you think "I want to move right" and your fingers naturally press 'h'. The keybindings become an extension of spatial reasoning rather than abstract symbol manipulation.
This principle extends beyond window management - vim's entire philosophy treats text editing as navigation through dimensional space, making complex operations feel natural and memorable.
And like I said, this model can easily be extended beyond just the text editor - you can navigate things in your browser, terminal, etc. Why would I even try to learn and memorize new keyboard shortcuts e.g., every time I install a new music player? I can control volume with j/k and previous/next song with h/l in any music player.
> I do think it's a stretch to call it "immediately graspable"
But it is though. It is very simple grammar. Anyone who's not mentally deficient can understand and learn it quickly. Building the muscle memory takes time, yes, but the idea itself is absolutely graspable. I remember, I hated myself for about a week. After that, my keyboard life was never the same.
Most people think of keyboard input as a linear, one-dimensional approach to text editing, that's what you're doing here. Vim-style navigation offers something fundamentally different - a spatial "language" that maps directly to how we conceptualize our workspace.
Consider window management in vanilla Emacs:
- C-x 2 splits horizontally (mnemonic: "two windows")
- C-x 3 splits vertically (less intuitive—why 3?)
- C-x 4 becomes a prefix for file operations in other windows
The logic breaks down quickly. There's no consistent mental model connecting these commands. C-x 4 abandons the splitting metaphor entirely, becoming a namespace for "other window" operations rather than a window count.
Doom Emacs's vim-inspired approach creates a coherent spatial language:
- SPC w s - split
- SPC w v - vertical split
- SPC w h/j/k/l - jump left/down/up/right
The hjkl directional keys mirror vim's movement commands, creating a consistent spatial metaphor. Your fingers learn to "think" in terms of physical direction rather than arbitrary key combinations.
This spatial approach transforms window management from memorizing disconnected shortcuts into developing spatial intuition. Instead of thinking "what was that split command again?", you think "I want to move right" and your fingers naturally press 'h'. The keybindings become an extension of spatial reasoning rather than abstract symbol manipulation.
This principle extends beyond window management - vim's entire philosophy treats text editing as navigation through dimensional space, making complex operations feel natural and memorable.
And like I said, this model can easily be extended beyond just the text editor - you can navigate things in your browser, terminal, etc. Why would I even try to learn and memorize new keyboard shortcuts e.g., every time I install a new music player? I can control volume with j/k and previous/next song with h/l in any music player.
> I do think it's a stretch to call it "immediately graspable"
But it is though. It is very simple grammar. Anyone who's not mentally deficient can understand and learn it quickly. Building the muscle memory takes time, yes, but the idea itself is absolutely graspable. I remember, I hated myself for about a week. After that, my keyboard life was never the same.
My comment was after having learned and gotten very good at vim about 15 years ago and used it primarily (via neovim) for at least a while, probably a few years, before moving to emacs, and finally VS Code. I still use vim for quick edits on the command line. I know how to edit modally, it just feels unnatural for me.
And then you start craving modal interfaces in your browser, file manager, terminal, messenger...
Some Google Docs <=> markdown buffer as a modal editor feature (or a plugin) would be cool.
Some Google Docs <=> markdown buffer as a modal editor feature (or a plugin) would be cool.
This, though I've always found the Chrome/Firefox vimlike browser plugins to be such second class citizens that they've never stuck with me.
I used to use modal tiling window managers on Linux, but since window managers are always second class on Mac/Windows, that never stuck either. I bounce around too frequently for it to work. I just suffice with tmux for now.
I was pleasantly surprised to find Discord's `s/search/replace` supported as an actual feature, though having it limited to just the last message is a bit limiting.
I used to use modal tiling window managers on Linux, but since window managers are always second class on Mac/Windows, that never stuck either. I bounce around too frequently for it to work. I just suffice with tmux for now.
I was pleasantly surprised to find Discord's `s/search/replace` supported as an actual feature, though having it limited to just the last message is a bit limiting.
I've had a good experience with Tridactyl on Firefox, but yeah, definitely second class citizens.
> I've always found the Chrome/Firefox vimlike browser plugins to be such second class citizens
Bro, you have no idea - vimium-c is absolutely amazing, I just can't really imagine my life without it. Toggling tab pinning and muting, moving tabs, grouping tabs, quickly finding a tab, extracting a tab into a window, joining windows, etc. - if you even try doing all that without modality, you'd have to keep learning new keybindings and memorize them.
The worst part of that is that keybindings would change. For me - font size change on a browser page works the same way as in my editor, and the terminal, and it is the same in every browser that vimium supports.
You basically need to ask yourself if you really want to keep learning and memorizing various, sometimes absolutely unrelated and difficult to reach key bindings that almost invariably require you holding modifiers, sometimes wasting your mental energy on subtleties between ctrl/alt/cmd/shift+key or you'd rather sit down, spend some time and take a systematic approach that will make your life so much easier.
> window managers are always second class on Mac/Windows, that never stuck either.
I don't use Windows much, but Yabai for Mac is really good. I've procrastinated on trying it for a long time, when I finally tried, it took me literally fifteen minutes to start. Then I hooked up my Hammerspoon config and added some key bindings. I'm very happy about it. Like for example, I've been so annoyed by Zoom that always scatters its windows around all my monitors, now I have "group Zoom windows" feature, and it's really nice.
Bro, you have no idea - vimium-c is absolutely amazing, I just can't really imagine my life without it. Toggling tab pinning and muting, moving tabs, grouping tabs, quickly finding a tab, extracting a tab into a window, joining windows, etc. - if you even try doing all that without modality, you'd have to keep learning new keybindings and memorize them.
The worst part of that is that keybindings would change. For me - font size change on a browser page works the same way as in my editor, and the terminal, and it is the same in every browser that vimium supports.
You basically need to ask yourself if you really want to keep learning and memorizing various, sometimes absolutely unrelated and difficult to reach key bindings that almost invariably require you holding modifiers, sometimes wasting your mental energy on subtleties between ctrl/alt/cmd/shift+key or you'd rather sit down, spend some time and take a systematic approach that will make your life so much easier.
> window managers are always second class on Mac/Windows, that never stuck either.
I don't use Windows much, but Yabai for Mac is really good. I've procrastinated on trying it for a long time, when I finally tried, it took me literally fifteen minutes to start. Then I hooked up my Hammerspoon config and added some key bindings. I'm very happy about it. Like for example, I've been so annoyed by Zoom that always scatters its windows around all my monitors, now I have "group Zoom windows" feature, and it's really nice.
Sure, you can leave it in insert mode the entire time. I'm not sure that's really what you want though, as you'd effectively turn the editor into a basic notepad app.
Probably not, but there are many editors to choose from if you do not like it. Some people prefer just modal so editors like vim/helix/etc. are tailor-made for them.
[deleted]
I love the example with git blame for the current line. Helix is my daily driver alongside lazygit, however I much appreciate a tighter integration of Git in Helix. A colleague showed me what he can do with magit in emacs, and that was some next-level stuff (e.g. cycling the buffer through the Git history of the file). Previously I was using Neovim, but I'm really happy with my switch to Helix. So much less config, keybindings I find more intuitive and multi-cursor editing. For agentic coding I'm looking into Aider and OpenCode. I expect a tool like that to join my terminal setup with Helix and lazygit.
I'm a long time Vim user, and I really liked Helix when I tried it last year. On one hand, I very much like the cleanliness of the whole project. On the other hand, I'm one of those people who find AI assisted coding useful (not vibe coding, just auto complete, auto edit suggestion, possibility to select block and make it do change on it). This is why I eventually started to move to VS Code with Cody, despite being way more comfortable in modal editors.
Does it do code folding yet?
Here is the forum post that convinced me NOT to continue getting into Helix. It says all I need about the project health. And given the development since then, I am more confident that it’s a bad horse to bet on.
https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/1840#issuecomme...
I don't see the problem. It's a great result: (paraphrasing) "people arguing about whether code folding is useful or not is pointless. we're going to do it eventually but not right now." What's wrong with that?
In therapy, I love the thought experiment of "What could he have said instead?" and WHY did he choose THIS exact phrasing, out of the millions of approaches he could have chosen?
Say that he is concerned about the time required for the project and only wants to safeguard the project. The post could convey the exact same message like this:
--- Alternative fictional answer by maintainer--- Confirming that code folding is a planned feature. It's a high-impact addition, but the implementation is non-trivial and requires careful design. The primary blocker is technical: our current buffer and positioning logic (see src/core/text_object.rs). A correct implementation requires a significant refactor of how we map logical buffer lines to visual screen positions.
Because core dev time is focused on xxx, a community-led effort is the most realistic path forward for this feature. I can provide review and guidance, but won't have the bandwidth to drive the implementation myself in the near term. If anybody want to contribute, Analyze the groundwork in PR #6417.
I'm keeping this issue open for high-level implementation strategies. Please take detailed design proposals to a new thread in Discussions to keep this focused. Off-topic comments will be removed. --- end of fictional answer ---
Basically, it all comes down to the vibe each response gives off. The real post is a classic "Do Not Enter" sign. The maintainer acts like the only one with the keys, essentially saying, "This is too hard for you, so don't even bother." It shuts the door on anyone who might want to help, which means the project is stuck waiting for that one person to have free time.
My rewritten version is more like leaving the door open for other smart people. The attitude is, "Look, this is a tricky problem and I'm swamped. If you're up for a real challenge, here’s the map to get started." It respects other developers' skills and invites them to be part of the solution.
I think the key to a great open-source project is that you have to actively build a team you can trust. You do that by giving people a real chance to contribute, learn the hard stuff, and eventually share the load. That's the only way a project grows beyond a one-person show and actually sticks around for the long haul.
Say that he is concerned about the time required for the project and only wants to safeguard the project. The post could convey the exact same message like this:
--- Alternative fictional answer by maintainer--- Confirming that code folding is a planned feature. It's a high-impact addition, but the implementation is non-trivial and requires careful design. The primary blocker is technical: our current buffer and positioning logic (see src/core/text_object.rs). A correct implementation requires a significant refactor of how we map logical buffer lines to visual screen positions.
Because core dev time is focused on xxx, a community-led effort is the most realistic path forward for this feature. I can provide review and guidance, but won't have the bandwidth to drive the implementation myself in the near term. If anybody want to contribute, Analyze the groundwork in PR #6417.
I'm keeping this issue open for high-level implementation strategies. Please take detailed design proposals to a new thread in Discussions to keep this focused. Off-topic comments will be removed. --- end of fictional answer ---
Basically, it all comes down to the vibe each response gives off. The real post is a classic "Do Not Enter" sign. The maintainer acts like the only one with the keys, essentially saying, "This is too hard for you, so don't even bother." It shuts the door on anyone who might want to help, which means the project is stuck waiting for that one person to have free time.
My rewritten version is more like leaving the door open for other smart people. The attitude is, "Look, this is a tricky problem and I'm swamped. If you're up for a real challenge, here’s the map to get started." It respects other developers' skills and invites them to be part of the solution.
I think the key to a great open-source project is that you have to actively build a team you can trust. You do that by giving people a real chance to contribute, learn the hard stuff, and eventually share the load. That's the only way a project grows beyond a one-person show and actually sticks around for the long haul.
It's fine that they dont want to do it or dont want to do it yet.
Still, I wasn't especially impressed with "code folding is hard, we might do it one day but don't hold your breath" from an editor that purports to be a replacement for vim or neovim.
Still, I wasn't especially impressed with "code folding is hard, we might do it one day but don't hold your breath" from an editor that purports to be a replacement for vim or neovim.
Development is a bit slow because there are only a few maintainers, but also because they have a strong vision and are very aggressive about prioritization and rejecting features that don’t fit. This is why Helix is so good and so focused a tool.
I've never used Helix and I likely never will, so I've got no horse in this race. But code folding, seriously? I'd be totally against it. It's yet another editor feature that ties your source code to tooling. It allows you to write too large and too many functions, while keeping the code readable to yourself. Source code should be readable (mostly) independently of tooling. It should be readable when printed to paper. (This is also why type inference in languages that aren't inherently functional languages is incredibly stupid; I understand that the compiler can infer the type under "auto", but now, when reviewing the code, I too must. Who the fuck wants that, seriously.)
And I'm unsure what your problem is with the discussion in the ticket. I've now read the first comment (the feature request), and the last comment (the one you highlighted). Both sound totally reasonable to me.
And I'm unsure what your problem is with the discussion in the ticket. I've now read the first comment (the feature request), and the last comment (the one you highlighted). Both sound totally reasonable to me.
Could not agree more with everything you said. I hate code folding because it leads to giant functions and blocks that are way too big, but because of the folding people don't have to look at it and scroll (which if they did, they would be much less inclined to write and ship such shit in the first place). Same with type inference. It's almost no effort to write out the type, and it's eminently readable. With type inference, it's not at all obvious. I usually get "well you can just hover over it with the IDE and it will tell you the type." I don't want to have to hover over stuff just to see the type! Not only is that a major downgrade from the previous state where it was just "String some_str" or whatever, but having to pause and grab the mouse and move it over to the variable is majorly disruptive to reading and requires me to use a mouse (which I don't normally use). Also, I use neovim, not whatever IDE you use and think everyone else must use.
I likewise thought the final response linked to was great. It was straightforward and to the point.
I likewise thought the final response linked to was great. It was straightforward and to the point.
The way to prevent giant classes and methods is with linting rules, not by crippling your text editor.
type inference makes code waaaaaay less verbose which aids readability.
type inference makes code waaaaaay less verbose which aids readability.
> It should be readable when printed to paper.
Why should anyone waste time targeting a dead use case?
Why should anyone waste time targeting a dead use case?
Right. But if we replace 'paper' with 'webpage' the parent post is still relevant.
Web page can run (and some code-focused pages do) code folding code, so the question is still relevant with minor modification.
The whole premise of losing productivity and spending time in the most common case to support underpowered rare use cases is deeply flawed.
It's similar to the argument for using bad defaults in config/keybinds 99% of the time just because in 1% of the time you would use another computer without your customizations.
The whole premise of losing productivity and spending time in the most common case to support underpowered rare use cases is deeply flawed.
It's similar to the argument for using bad defaults in config/keybinds 99% of the time just because in 1% of the time you would use another computer without your customizations.
What's so bad about this? I skimmed through it and it seems like it was handled quite well. Curious what you're learning from it about the project health.
Not yet.
Does anyone know which terminal is being used in the screencast?
I'm asking because I noticed slight pixel misalignments in some of the videos. For example, in the File Explorer demo, the window border isn't a solid outline—it has small gaps in the frame. I’m wondering if using a terminal like Ghostty might fix that.
I'm asking because I noticed slight pixel misalignments in some of the videos. For example, in the File Explorer demo, the window border isn't a solid outline—it has small gaps in the frame. I’m wondering if using a terminal like Ghostty might fix that.
They're actually not videos! They're using asciinema: https://asciinema.org/, which is rendering actual text in the webpage - try selecting some while the recording is playing.
Looking forward to the new file picker! Now to wait for evilhelix (https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix) to sync with upstream
This is great. I have been daily driving Helix for a few years now and every release has been really exciting. Still anxiously waiting on a plugin system, but that’s more of a bonus than a need.
Great editor, switched from neovim and can't get enough of it. The software where I really exited about new releases. No issues for me, and only good vibes ahead. Thanks devs
The file explorer is something I’ve been really wanting. But I really want to be able to quickly create, rename, delete the way I can in netrw. I use netrw like this all the time.
Injections / nested tree-sitter scopes is neat. I guess this means it can highlight html template code where html, js, css and the template syntax all have highlights?
Very sad that Helix still doesn't have Sublime-like multi-caret support. All I want is to Ctrl + Click and Shift + Alt + Arrows.
Multi-caret support in Helix is awesome. It’s even the first feature they mention on the homepage.
https://helix-editor.com
You can `C` to extend the caret down, or `s` to enter a multiple regex selection. It even keeps your copied/deleted text per caret.
I do wild things with it all the time, like changing a structured document into a completely different structure.
https://helix-editor.com
You can `C` to extend the caret down, or `s` to enter a multiple regex selection. It even keeps your copied/deleted text per caret.
I do wild things with it all the time, like changing a structured document into a completely different structure.
Indeed. Helix's multi-cursor support seems like a rocket-powered chainsaw to me.
It's powerfully expressive. IIRC, you can select a region (such as a whole file), split the selection into multiple cursors, retain only the selections which match a regex, among other things.
It's powerfully expressive. IIRC, you can select a region (such as a whole file), split the selection into multiple cursors, retain only the selections which match a regex, among other things.
What is the equivalent of Sublime's Ctrl + D? Double-clicking to select something, then Ctrl + D to select all instances of that something, while creating multi carets on each.
> All I want is ...
Understandable, for sure, but the number of users who want their own "simple" addition means it gets overwhelming pretty quickly. Helix has deferred work on most extra functionality until after implementing a Scheme extension language. Once that's done, adding features might be as simple as installing a plugin.
Understandable, for sure, but the number of users who want their own "simple" addition means it gets overwhelming pretty quickly. Helix has deferred work on most extra functionality until after implementing a Scheme extension language. Once that's done, adding features might be as simple as installing a plugin.
Wait, helix will get scheme before gnu emacs, aww
Authors are free to do as they please, but as an entitled member of the peanut gallery…aren’t there already enough small configuration languages? Seems like a distraction when there are already hundreds of schemes, Lua, Janet, etc.
In that case, Kakoune[1] (Helix’s main inspiration) is probably more your jam. You get an RPC interface and are free to script it from anything you want (shell to Rust is about the range I’ve encountered). It does mean that you don’t get the batteries you get with Helix (e.g. LSP support) and need to bring your own (e.g. kakoune-lsp[2]).
[1] https://kakoune.org/
[2] https://github.com/kakoune-lsp/kakoune-lsp
[1] https://kakoune.org/
[2] https://github.com/kakoune-lsp/kakoune-lsp
Is including batteries the main reason helix seems to have started taking off, while kakoune hasn't?
I use kakoune, because I like the client/server architecture for managing multiple windows, which helix can't do. The less configuring I do the better, but I've hardly done any in the past year. It's nice to have the option.
I do use kakoune-lsp and kak-tree-sitter.
I use kakoune, because I like the client/server architecture for managing multiple windows, which helix can't do. The less configuring I do the better, but I've hardly done any in the past year. It's nice to have the option.
I do use kakoune-lsp and kak-tree-sitter.
I don't know if this is still the case but they were leaning towards Steel.
Relevant Github comment: https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/10389
Steel: https://github.com/mattwparas/steel
Relevant Github comment: https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/10389
Steel: https://github.com/mattwparas/steel
It has multi cursor support. `Shift+C` to expand down one line or you can split the cursor based on select. Collapse all of them with `,`
Life is to short to learn and memorize Vi / Helix keybinds. That's why I stay with Micro as terminal editor.
Love helix. Lots of features are still needed, but it’s an excellent editor
I’m excited to try this remotely with DAP
I would definitely use it but the main disadvantage is that some keybindings work differently than vim. I understand that the keybindings may be better that the vim ones but after years of using vim I expect "x" in normal mode to delete the character under the cursor or "d" to wait for the motion before deleting anything. When this does not happen I get confused and angry. I think this would be a problem with most people that are using vim; it's very difficult to change your habits especially since you can't ever escape from vim because of its ubiquity.
Thankfully, some good people have released evil-helix, a soft fork of Helix which introduces Vim keybindings https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix ; I tried it and it works great so I'll totally recommend it to people that have my problems.
As a final notice, helix (and evil-helix) works great in Windows (cmd). No need to install rust or anything. Get the .exe and you're gtg.