3 ms·

This is such an odd perspective. Everyone here would say that the copy and paste shortcut keys are worth learning. Also alt-tab to cycle through windows. So wh

This is such an odd perspective. Everyone here would say that the copy and paste shortcut keys are worth learning. Also alt-tab to cycle through windows. So why is it so hard to believe that other shortcut keys are useful? I have deep respect for Carmack. If he would rather spin his cycles to solve difficult problems, I respect that. To say that learning time saving shortcuts doesn't save time is shortsighted. If a woodworker chooses to work only with chisels, it doesn't make him less of an artist. However, to say using power tools doesn't make you more efficient is a tad disingenuous.

em500 6y ago
Powerlaw and diminishing returns. It's worth learning the 20% most used shortcuts to save you 80% time. It may not be worth learning another 70% to save 10% more. The actual thresholds and sets of shortcuts are different for everyone. That's why discussions like this never end.
- nouveaux 6y ago
  I disagree that its as subjective as you put it. No one would say that a manual hand drill is comparable to an automatic drill in speed. Going from normal text editor to vi is like going from assembly to Python. Or using `find -exec` to delete files using a pattern vs deleting files one by one. You are that much more productive when editing text in vi.
  - phist_mcgee 6y ago
    I have used both an IDE and vim for years, and in my personal experience, editing text speed is overstated in vim purely due to the kind of text you are writing, namely a program. Just because I can replace all text inside a tag 90% faster than an IDE does not mean my next thought will be ready to go when that task is complete. I just don't see where the savings come from in terms of actual finger presses to outcomes per day.
blub 6y ago
I have the feeling that some of us are trying to claim some of the mystique of art and the tradition of the crafts for themselves by drawing a comparison that's not based on anything objective. We're staring at a monitor for 8+ hours a day folks and there's no art or craft in staring at things, thinking or drawing diagrams. Yes, there's a whole invisible universe unfolding in the depths of the machine and the mental models can be incredibly complex and maybe one can even admit that there's a certain beauty to some designs or pieces of code. But programming remains very different form any kind of art known by man or the crafts which typically result in the creation of a physical object. That being said, Carmack's making fellow developers aware that they're investing a lot of time only to get diminishing returns. That's a difficult problem, because we're incredibly obstinate about our sacred cows.
- mejutoco 6y ago
  > We're staring at a monitor for 8+ hours a day folks and there's no art or craft in staring at things, thinking or drawing diagrams. Yes, there's a whole invisible universe unfolding in the depths of the machine and the mental models can be incredibly complex and maybe one can even admit that there's a certain beauty to some designs or pieces of code. But programming remains very different form any kind of art known by man or the crafts which typically result in the creation of a physical object. I think I get your point but I respectfully disagree. The same could be said of a writer staring at a piece of paper (or a computer screen) and good literature is uncontroversially considered art. I believe this is more a consequence of newer technology initially perceived as less valuable (photography vs painting, computer rendered vs manual processes, etc) in art, which seems a romantic view of how art should be created.

em500 6y ago

Powerlaw and diminishing returns. It's worth learning the 20% most used shortcuts to save you 80% time. It may not be worth learning another 70% to save 10% more. The actual thresholds and sets of shortcuts are different for everyone. That's why discussions like this never end.

nouveaux 6y ago
I disagree that its as subjective as you put it. No one would say that a manual hand drill is comparable to an automatic drill in speed. Going from normal text editor to vi is like going from assembly to Python. Or using `find -exec` to delete files using a pattern vs deleting files one by one. You are that much more productive when editing text in vi.
- phist_mcgee 6y ago
  I have used both an IDE and vim for years, and in my personal experience, editing text speed is overstated in vim purely due to the kind of text you are writing, namely a program. Just because I can replace all text inside a tag 90% faster than an IDE does not mean my next thought will be ready to go when that task is complete. I just don't see where the savings come from in terms of actual finger presses to outcomes per day.

blub 6y ago

I have the feeling that some of us are trying to claim some of the mystique of art and the tradition of the crafts for themselves by drawing a comparison that's not based on anything objective. We're staring at a monitor for 8+ hours a day folks and there's no art or craft in staring at things, thinking or drawing diagrams. Yes, there's a whole invisible universe unfolding in the depths of the machine and the mental models can be incredibly complex and maybe one can even admit that there's a certain beauty to some designs or pieces of code. But programming remains very different form any kind of art known by man or the crafts which typically result in the creation of a physical object. That being said, Carmack's making fellow developers aware that they're investing a lot of time only to get diminishing returns. That's a difficult problem, because we're incredibly obstinate about our sacred cows.

mejutoco 6y ago
> We're staring at a monitor for 8+ hours a day folks and there's no art or craft in staring at things, thinking or drawing diagrams. Yes, there's a whole invisible universe unfolding in the depths of the machine and the mental models can be incredibly complex and maybe one can even admit that there's a certain beauty to some designs or pieces of code. But programming remains very different form any kind of art known by man or the crafts which typically result in the creation of a physical object. I think I get your point but I respectfully disagree. The same could be said of a writer staring at a piece of paper (or a computer screen) and good literature is uncontroversially considered art. I believe this is more a consequence of newer technology initially perceived as less valuable (photography vs painting, computer rendered vs manual processes, etc) in art, which seems a romantic view of how art should be created.