4 ms·
I think for me it would be much like the Dvorak keyboard layout: It would save me so much time and I would love it, but I just can't unlearn something so deeply
by jayphelps 16y ago
I think for me it would be much like the Dvorak keyboard layout: It would save me so much time and I would love it, but I just can't unlearn something so deeply ingraved into me. I've tried, but it just turned out to be counter productive cause of the time spent relearning = time could have just typed the damn thing in QWERTY.
Btw, I was hoping this article was about ternary operator shorthand. (e.g. result = a > b ? x : y;) In that case I would have said HELL YES.
- crux 16y agoThe one advantage that my system has is that it's a little more like Colemak than Dvorak—to drop the metaphor, my system basically takes a standard line of plain text and does a lot of character substitution. So not only is any line of my system's (got to think of a better name) text non-lossy with a single unambiguous line of Roman alphabet text, but you can basically learn it as you go: writing everything down normally and replacing characters and clusters as you learn those new glyphs. You don't have to start from scratch like in Dvorak, or like in all those nutty swoopy shorthand systems of yore.
- jayphelps 16y agoWell to answer your question more directly, I'm 100% sure there are plenty of people who would enjoy you documenting it. Even if I didn't use it, I'd read it. Never underestimate our geekiness! I'm sure I'm not the only one who surfs Wikipedia several hours a day learning the most random shit.