Couldn't disagree more. Why move away from solid, mature build systems to something relatively fringe like zig.

Sadly, this is the general trend with neovim in general: less focus on stability, more and more focus on shiny new things. If I didn't have an nvim config that I'm used to I would have switched to plain vim ages ago.

▲

monooso a day ago | parent | next [-]

I've found Neovim to be remarkably stable, even when building from main.

▲

tovej a day ago | parent [-]

You haven't been using the LSP API then. There have also been multiple breaking changes over the last five years, including breaking compatibility with established default vim keybindings.

▲

monooso 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A documented breaking change does not mean the application is unstable.

The Neovim developers have been extremely clear that part of the process of getting to 1.0 is finalising the API, and that there will be breaking changes en-route.

	▲	tovej an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I have never experienced this many breaking changes in stable software. There's a reason nvim still hasn't hit 1.0 To be clear, it's fine to have breaking changes. Especially if you're working towards something substantial. But nvim and its plugin ecosystem seem to be altogether too keen to change absolutely everything and adopt all bleeding edge developments. Even when a mature system would serve the purpose just as well.

▲

justinmk 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Changing default mappings is not a "breaking" change.

	▲	tovej an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It is. And iirc, neovim themselves mark them as such.

▲

_bohm 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Having spent some time with the Zig build system, I genuinely expect this development will make things less fragile than they were with the CMake build.