Pros of Vimium

• Browser-based: Enhances web browsing experience with Vim-like shortcuts
• Extensive feature set: Offers a wide range of navigation and control options
• Active community: Regular updates and contributions from users

Cons of Vimium

• Limited to web browsers: Not a standalone text editor like Kilo
• Steeper learning curve: Requires familiarity with Vim-style commands
• Dependency on browser compatibility: May have limitations based on browser support

Code Comparison

Kilo (C):

void editorMoveCursor(int key) {
  switch (key) {
    case ARROW_LEFT:
      if (E.cx != 0) {
        E.cx--;
      }
      break;
    // ... other cases
  }
}

Vimium (JavaScript):

const scrollToBottom = () => {
  window.scrollTo(0, document.body.scrollHeight);
};

Vomnibar.activate = (options = {}) => {
  const vomnibar = new Vomnibar(options);
  vomnibar.init();
};

While Kilo focuses on low-level text editing operations in C, Vimium implements browser-specific actions in JavaScript, reflecting their different purposes and environments.

Pros of micro

• More feature-rich, including syntax highlighting and multiple buffers
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements
• Extensive plugin system for customization and extensibility

Cons of micro

• Larger codebase and more complex architecture
• Higher resource usage due to additional features
• Steeper learning curve for users and contributors

Code comparison

micro (Go):

func (t *TextArea) Insert(c rune) {
    t.insertAtCursor(string(c))
    t.cursor.Right()
}

kilo (C):

void editorInsertChar(int c) {
    if (E.cy == E.numrows) {
        editorInsertRow(E.numrows, "");
    }
    editorRowInsertChar(&E.row[E.cy], E.cx, c);
    E.cx++;
}

Summary

micro is a more feature-rich and actively maintained text editor, offering syntax highlighting, multiple buffers, and an extensive plugin system. However, it has a larger codebase and higher resource usage compared to kilo. kilo, on the other hand, is a minimalist editor with a simpler codebase, making it easier to understand and modify but lacking some advanced features. The code comparison shows the difference in implementation languages and complexity between the two projects.

Pros of lite

• Written in Lua, offering easier extensibility and customization
• Includes a plugin system for adding new features
• Provides a more modern and feature-rich text editing experience

Cons of lite

• Larger codebase and more complex architecture
• Requires Lua runtime, potentially impacting portability
• May have a steeper learning curve for contributors

Code comparison

lite (Lua):

local core = require "core"
local command = require "core.command"
local keymap = require "core.keymap"

command.add("core.docview", {
  ["file:open"] = function()
    core.command_view:enter("Open File", function(text)
      core.root_view:open_doc(core.open_doc(text))
    end)
  end,
})

kilo (C):

void editorProcessKeypress() {
  int c = editorReadKey();
  switch (c) {
    case CTRL_KEY('q'):
      write(STDOUT_FILENO, "\x1b[2J", 4);
      write(STDOUT_FILENO, "\x1b[H", 3);
      exit(0);
      break;
  }
}

Pros of Kakoune

• More feature-rich and advanced text editor with modal editing
• Supports multiple selections and interactive filtering
• Active development and community support

Cons of Kakoune

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique editing paradigm
• Larger codebase and more complex architecture
• Requires more system resources compared to Kilo

Code Comparison

Kilo (main editing loop):

while(1) {
    editorRefreshScreen();
    editorProcessKeypress();
}

Kakoune (main event loop):

while (true)
{
    try
    {
        context.events_manager().handle_next_event(context);
    }
    catch (runtime_error& error)
    {
        context.print_status({error.what(), get_face("Error")});
    }
}

Kilo is a minimalist text editor designed for simplicity and educational purposes, while Kakoune is a more advanced text editor with a unique selection-oriented editing model. Kilo's codebase is smaller and easier to understand, making it ideal for learning about text editor internals. Kakoune offers more features and flexibility but requires more effort to master. The code comparison shows the difference in complexity between the two projects' main loops, with Kakoune handling events and errors more robustly.

Pros of Neovim

• Extensive plugin ecosystem and customization options
• Active development with frequent updates and new features
• Built-in Lua support for scripting and configuration

Cons of Neovim

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity and numerous features
• Larger codebase and resource footprint

Code Comparison

Kilo (simple text insertion):

void editorInsertChar(int c) {
  if (E.cy == E.numrows) {
    editorInsertRow(E.numrows, "", 0);
  }
  editorRowInsertChar(&E.row[E.cy], E.cx, c);
  E.cx++;
}

Neovim (text insertion with API):

local api = vim.api
local function insert_char(char)
  local row, col = unpack(api.nvim_win_get_cursor(0))
  api.nvim_buf_set_text(0, row - 1, col, row - 1, col, {char})
  api.nvim_win_set_cursor(0, {row, col + 1})
end

Summary

Kilo is a minimalist text editor designed for educational purposes, while Neovim is a feature-rich, extensible editor for daily use. Kilo offers simplicity and a smaller codebase, making it easier to understand and modify. Neovim provides a more powerful editing experience with advanced features and plugin support, but at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of vim

• Extensive feature set with powerful editing capabilities
• Large ecosystem of plugins and customizations
• Cross-platform support and wide availability

Cons of vim

• Steep learning curve for new users
• Complex codebase with a long history, making it harder to contribute
• Larger resource footprint compared to minimal editors

Code Comparison

Vim (handling key input):

static void normal_cmd(oparg_T *oap, int toplevel)
{
    int		c;
    int		cc;
    int		nchar;
    int		command_executed = FALSE;

    // ...
}

Kilo (handling key input):

void editorProcessKeypress() {
    int c = editorReadKey();
    switch (c) {
        case CTRL_KEY('q'):
            exit(0);
            break;
        // ...
    }
}

The code snippets show how each editor handles key input. Vim's approach is more complex, reflecting its advanced functionality, while Kilo's implementation is simpler and more straightforward.

Vim offers a rich set of features and extensibility but comes with a steeper learning curve. Kilo, being a minimal editor, provides a simpler codebase and easier entry point for beginners or those looking to understand editor internals.