heirloom-ex-vi

ht find mobx of interest - I tend to use that for state modeling no matter the framework doing the rendering - everybody seems to be getting very excited about 'reactive signals' these days and ... they basically all have their own implementation that feels, to me, like Yet Another NIH Of A Tiny Subset Of MobX ... except invariably missing at least one feature that I really wanted. Which is how I ended up with my own libs.js on a current project, the sum total of which is export { render, createElement, options as 'preactOptions', Fragment } from 'preact'; export { observable, action, computed, flow, createAtom, Reaction } from 'mobx'; export { observer } from 'mobx-preact'; and then on the fairly sporadic occasions that I need to adjust the exports I have a shell script that does a tiny bit of bookkeeping and then runs bun build --format=esm src/web/libs.js >bundle/web/libs.js so I run that, and then go back to forgetting that the build process (and the node_modules directory it's sourcing those libraries from) exists. I also have about 20 lines' worth of custom dev server that will serve the bundle/ file preferentially over the src/ file if it exists, plus a couple other minor things. But this is, for me, all about keeping things as simple as possible barring some slight effort towards ergonomics, plus knowing that I understand every part of what's going on so I don't end up stuck in a "one of my abstractions is leaking and I've no -ing idea how or why" type situation (hence also my very minimalist choice of editor, any time I try a more clever one I fairly rapidly end up in a situation where the tab completion does the wrong thing so I just type everything out anyway, or where the syntax hilighting produces colours that give me a headache, or ... just colour me a curmudgeon who learned his chops on ancient BSDi and Solaris systems, I don't expect anybody else to want to use my dev environment but it works for me). Anyway. None of this is to try and convince you of anything much, I just thought you might find my setup vaguely interesting. I'll stop waffling now :D

atabase). OpenVi uses the OpenBSD version of Berkeley DB which derives from 1.85. Nvi (1.8x) provides a minimal version of code also derived from that release intended from use with Nvi, and (IIRC) also provides support for using Db3/4/5. Similar situation for Nvi2. Nvi 1.8 has been structured where a third library layer has been added, which doesn't exist in OpenBSD's vi or OpenVi. There is scripting support (Tcl, Perl, etc.) and GUI code in the other various forks ... all of these support various different options as well. I should probably make a matrix of these, but you can get an idea by looking at the settable options implemented in each of the variants (as they historically include a comment to document from where the option originated): OpenVi: https://github.com/johnsonjh/OpenVi/blob/22c2a7022e31d91e09e... OpenBSD vi: https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/usr.bin/vi/common... Nvi2: https://github.com/lichray/nvi2/blob/5fcdc13656500a8c5b4c073... Nvi1: https://repo.or.cz/nvi.git/blob/HEAD:/common/options.c#l52