I do find Helix very impressive. I remember the Python LSP working without any configuration whatsoever.

However, I have vim muscle memory built over 25 years of use. I already struggle switching between Emacs and vim (or its equivalents) - for example, after a period of vim usage, I would press ESC repeatedly in Emacs, three of which are enough close a window. While Helix borrows modal editing from vim, it introduces subtle (and meaningful - I have to admit) variations, which unfortunately wreaks havoc with my muscle memory. Maybe the worst part about muscle memory is that unlearning is almost impossible. My dilemma, not Helix's fault...

Surprisingly, it didn’t take that long to update my Vim muscle memory. Days or weeks, maybe? However, I still have mixed feelings about modal editors in general, and most of my gripes with Helix are actually about modal editors and/or console editors in general.

Code folding is a feature I’m still waiting for.

However, after a few weeks, I ended up rewriting things to be more classic VIM-like after all. This might have just been muscle memory refusing to yield, I am not sure. One thing I remember though, was that the multi-cursor+selection approach only really helps when you can see everything you're about to change on the screen. For large edits, most selections will be out of the scroll window and not really helping.

I still haven't written it off completely, though with AI I increasingly find myself writing more prose than keywords and brackets, so I am not sure it's going to feel worth it.

"Within C++, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to get out."

Helix carries a baggage of ideas from Vim. It does not have consistent and transferable keybinds. It does not have composition of ideas:

You can move to the next line in the buffer editor with `k` but to move down to the next line in the file explorer you have to do `ctrl+n`?

Vim is like C, Helix is like C++ and Ki Editor is like Rust.

For the curious: https://github.com/seg6/dotfiles/blob/1281626127dfbf584c2939...

For sufficiently complex manipulations, I find the "selection-action" ("motion-action") to be more intuitive than "action-motion". Even with vim, I'd often like making use of visual mode.

I think the main limitation to this that I believe is it's probably a bit slower for quick + frequent edits compared to vim.

As long as helix doesn’t add a plugin system I think both are superior to neovim. Neovim defaults are just awful. I hate that quickfix and loclist are so close to being useful for pickers but it just misses the mark and now there’s lock in on some terrible impl because we don’t want to break backwards compatibility. The select -> action model is superior.

Having an opinionated editor just makes so much sense. We don’t need 10 different picker implementations.

Would love to see some AI related plug-ins when the plug-in system is finally released.

>>Post-modern?!

>It's a joke. If Neovim is the modern Vim, then Helix is post-modern.

It's interesting that postmodern is so often used by people, perhaps less familiar with the arts and the humanities, to mean "an update to modern" or a progression thereof. They use it in a strictly literal sense, eschewing the precise meaning of the term they're referencing by mere addition of discontinuity as incremental difference.

Obviously, there's little impact to this. The term is hardly degraded by engineers advertising to other engineers. It looks a touch unread, but then again we have people like Thiel and Luckey misinterpreting Tolkien, so again it's hardly the most egregious example. I guess it just jumped out to me because I was hoping to see something creative truly postmodern.

You do start to think “can I get helix keybindings in my shell”, though.

For the last two weeks, I was forced to work at a normal keyboard. After initial pain for one day, I got back to typing at normal speed. Without losing my comfort with the ergonomic one. I can now just context switch. It wasn't easy though.

Perhaps you will also become comfortable with both vim and helix after the initial struggle?

Which is still a net positive over the alternative?

I have reload-all bound to Ctrl-r

I think 29MB is still huge for a terminal text editor, but nevertheless not "hundreds".

How do other editors do this, if they don't use LSPs? Helix specifically choses LSP as the integration mechanism (in combination with TreeSitter) for supporting different programming languages, because it is a language-agnostic protocol and therefore only needs to be implemented once. Is there some established AI-agnostic protocol/interface? I don't think MCP would work here?

[0]: https://ki-editor.org/

That's why the Ki editor has a feature called Reveal Cursors (https://ki-editor.org/docs/normal-mode/space-menu#-cursor-re...), which is specifically made to solve this issue

[0] https://github.com/usagi-flow/evil-helix

Me too and it took a view attempts but I'm on Helix now and don't regret it. Once you are over the most prominent discrepancies like dd and G it's an uphill battle.

Another option you may want to try is mux (github.com/coder/mux). It wraps the LLM in a nice interface which has the ability to do line/block comments on changes by the LLM that then goes goes into your next prompt. It’s very early stage though: v0.19.0.

I've never used Helix, but this exists in vim too, but it the autocompletion, because in that context hitting k would type k. Makes sense right? I'm guessing hitting k in Helix file explorer has a similar use, maybe searching?

[1] https://zed.dev/

You can configure every combination of keystrokes in Emacs - just bind M-ESC ESC to something harmless (such as, e.g., not function at all).

One possibility would be the following line in your ~/.emacs file:

    (global-set-key (kbd "M-ESC ESC") 'keyboard-quit)

For Emacs, I use multiple cursors and a treesitter-based plug-in for incrementally expanding or reducing the selection by text objects. I also have a collection of my own helper functions for working with text that make my non-modal Emacs approach still feel very comparable to the power of manipulating text in Vim.

Curious to hear if your issues with modal editing are similar.

In Emacs, there's an mc-hide-unmatched-lines command that temporarily hides the lines between the ones with cursors. This makes multiple cursors usable with up to a screen-height number of items (being able to place cursors by searching for a regexp helps).

I agree, though - MCs are most useful for simple, localized edits. They're nice because they don't require you to mentally switch between interactive and batch editing modes, while still giving you some of the batch mode benefits. For larger or more complex edits, a batch-mode tool ("Search and replace", editable occur-mode in Emacs, or even shelling out to sed) is often a better choice.

But, I found helix a little too opinionated. In particular, when you exit and go back into the file it won't take you back to where you were. I decided I'd start using helix on my "work journal" file which is over 20K lines and I edit somewhere towards but not at the end (done is above the cursor, to do and notes are below). Also, I NEED hard line wrapping for that.

Helix doesn't seem interested in incorporating either of those, which were "must haves" for me.

So I set the LLMs on it and they were able to make those changes, which was pretty cool. But I ended up deciding that I really didn't want to maintain my own helix fork for this, not really a plus over maintaining my vim config.

On the other hand, many of the AI tools and their companies think that you should completely ditch IDEs for CLIs only, because "nobody needs to write code anymore". Some of them even stopped maintaining IDE extensions and go all-in in CLIs.

(I call that complete BS)