> The fact that something is furiously developed by hundreds of developers is a very poor reason. What does this rather meaningless "health" of Neovim gives to the end users? Fresh new bugs?
It's not like Neovim (or any open source project) is an open house where anyone can come, throw some code over the wall and get it merged. Like any big project (Vim included), it is being maintained by a set of core responsible developers who know better. Neovim has a huge focus on automated tests and CI also. I don't see any reason why a big contributor base should make the end product worse.
> I just don't see any logic in your argument. You speak about loosely defined "health" and "momentum" as if there was a clear link between software quality and amount of buzz around the project.
Of course there is. Look at Linux, ReactJS, Docker, Kubernetes, Ubuntu, Firefox. The more momentum a project has, the more contributions it gets. Open source projects succeed because of the community around them.
GNU Hurd was not able to gather momentum and look where it is today. Contributors flocked to Linux so it flourished.