3 ms·
I've used Dvorak for years, and have no problem whatsoever using vi and Emacs with it. (I use Emacs for major work and nvi for quick edits in the shell.) Emacs
by silentbicycle 16y ago
I've used Dvorak for years, and have no problem whatsoever using vi and Emacs with it. (I use Emacs for major work and nvi for quick edits in the shell.) Emacs is significantly better with Dvorak, IMHO, because there isn't so much mashed together on the left hand.
The only thing I've ever had a hard time getting used to with Dvorak is the diagonal movement commands in nethack. hjkl is not a big deal, but yubn trips me up.
- ack 16y agohave you tried mg instead of nvi for all those quick shell edits? the commands are still the same.
- silentbicycle 16y agoYes. By and large, it only preserves the aspects of Emacs I don't care for. (It is in OpenBSD's default install, though. That's cool.) I like Emacs's extension model, and its "everything is a buffer" design, but dislike its modifier-heavy keybindings. I like vi's modal interface and general command orthogonality, but would rather have a persistent, extensible, etc. environment. (Also, I like Lisp, but elisp kind of sucks. And I have written, and continue to write, a fair amount of elisp.) On the balance, Emacs works better for me, though if a synthesis of the two with a good extension language (I nominate Lua) ever comes along, and retroactively gets the ten programmer-centuries of work it'd take to match what Emacs has, I'd switch in a heartbeat. Also: Yes, I know about Viper and the other vi-emulation modes, but people who write Emacs extensions follow the cultural standards for keybindings, etc. Including me.