3 ms·

The "all hat and no cattle" link in the OP is a much better argument for macros>multiple cursors: https://medium.com/@schtoeffel/you-don-t-need-more-than-one-c

The "all hat and no cattle" link in the OP is a much better argument for macros>multiple cursors: https://medium.com/@schtoeffel/you-don-t-need-more-than-one-cursor-in-vim-2c44117d51db https://medium.com/@schtoeffel/you-don-t-need-more-than-one-... Editors without vim macros probably need multiple cursors, but the main argument in favor of macros is that (for things like the markdown underline macro), it's easy to save it for later, and you can see it happen to every location even if some are offscreen.

sullyj3 9y ago
The main argument for multiple cursors over macros is that they give a tighter feedback loop. If the macro you record works for the section where you recorded it, but doesn't generalise, without thinking hard about it (undesirable) you won't know about it until you actually go and run the macro in an incompatible spot. Once that happens, you either have to re-record it, or dump it out and edit it manually. Neither of those options can be said to be particular friction free. By contrast, with multiple cursors, if you do something wrong (or right in some places, wrong in others) you know about it immediately, and you can fix it immediately in a friction free manner. I don't think multiple cursors can replace macros in all situations, but it needs to be acknowledged that different tools have different strengths and weaknesses, and when choosing which to use in a given situation you should keep that in mind. Dismissing one because the other is more powerful is like always using a sledgehammer to knock in your nails. Sometimes the other is more convenient, or more user friendly, or less of a pain in the arse in some other relevant way.