Show HN: A command-line tool for slicing and formatting input using Vim motions (github.com) 1 points by video_2 1y ago ↗ HN
[–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ Or, just learn / use awk, since you'll need it anyway. [–] video_2 1y ago ↗ awk is nice in a lot of cases, especially for tabular data, but it's hard to deny vim's capabilities for handling plain text using text objects. For instance, you can't really tell awk to just "extract this entire sentence" like you can with vim. [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ You realize Vim will detect "sentence" based on exactly the same regex you can feed to awk? And "tabular data", dear me... [–] video_2 1y ago ↗ Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarks. And you won't need to write out a whole regex.Also, I'd love to see what this "sentence finding" regex of yours would look like. I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis" [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ > Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarksThan awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.
[–] video_2 1y ago ↗ awk is nice in a lot of cases, especially for tabular data, but it's hard to deny vim's capabilities for handling plain text using text objects. For instance, you can't really tell awk to just "extract this entire sentence" like you can with vim. [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ You realize Vim will detect "sentence" based on exactly the same regex you can feed to awk? And "tabular data", dear me... [–] video_2 1y ago ↗ Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarks. And you won't need to write out a whole regex.Also, I'd love to see what this "sentence finding" regex of yours would look like. I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis" [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ > Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarksThan awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.
[–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ You realize Vim will detect "sentence" based on exactly the same regex you can feed to awk? And "tabular data", dear me... [–] video_2 1y ago ↗ Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarks. And you won't need to write out a whole regex.Also, I'd love to see what this "sentence finding" regex of yours would look like. I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis" [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ > Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarksThan awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.
[–] video_2 1y ago ↗ Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarks. And you won't need to write out a whole regex.Also, I'd love to see what this "sentence finding" regex of yours would look like. I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis" [–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ > Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarksThan awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.
[–] dsjkvf 1y ago ↗ > Yes, but vicut is also faster on benchmarksThan awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.
6 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] threadAlso, I'd love to see what this "sentence finding" regex of yours would look like. I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"
Than awk? I very, very doubt your 0.001-3s findings.
> I'm sure it's way better than just typing "vis"
Of course. Because you can use it everywhere, that's the whole point of learning regex, awk, or any other POSIX tool.