3 ms·

Well, the reality is that WYSIWYG editing of all sorts is object oriented. You first select the object and then the action. So it’s not clear whether being mor

Well, the reality is that WYSIWYG editing of all sorts is object oriented. You first select the object and then the action. So it’s not clear whether being more comfortable with selecting an object and then performing an action on it is innately easier for humans, or just what we’ve been conditioned to from using word processors, spreadsheets, or even GUI based file explorers. But if you look at command line usage, it’s the opposite. Every command first requires you to stare the command, and then the object to act on. I first type cd and then the folder I want to change directory to, compared to selecting the folder and then hitting enter/CMD+O/double clicking ont he GUI. But people who have used both the GUI and CMD line rarely ever find the order of operation to be a concern for them, so I suspect the object-verb verb-object difference in vim is just a matter of convenience.

bombela 5y ago
I do woodworking and construction work. In real life, I always must select first. Apply action second. So to me this feels more natural.
- addicted 5y ago
  I think you’re overestimating how well real life actions map to the object/verb dichotomy. So you’d say that it’s object first because you first get the wood and saw and then decide to saw the wood with it. I could argue it’s verb first because you first GET the wood and saw. I’m not saying that I’m right and you’re wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. My point is that I don’t think real life actions can be broken cleanly into object-verb or verb-object, in the first place.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    "I need to GET something. I know, I'll GET some WOOD." "I need some WOOD. I think I'll GET some WOOD."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jrek 5y ago
      I think this supports the point - in either case the syntax for the action is 'get wood'.
      - ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
        This whole back and forth in this subthread is ridiculous. People are comparing command syntax (not even a proper PL) with natural language syntax. First one is used to define actions first and foremost, and the second one to describe them. How we formulate our actions in our head/speech to describe them is mostly irrelevant here.

bombela 5y ago

I do woodworking and construction work. In real life, I always must select first. Apply action second. So to me this feels more natural.

addicted 5y ago
I think you’re overestimating how well real life actions map to the object/verb dichotomy. So you’d say that it’s object first because you first get the wood and saw and then decide to saw the wood with it. I could argue it’s verb first because you first GET the wood and saw. I’m not saying that I’m right and you’re wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. My point is that I don’t think real life actions can be broken cleanly into object-verb or verb-object, in the first place.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  "I need to GET something. I know, I'll GET some WOOD." "I need some WOOD. I think I'll GET some WOOD."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrek 5y ago
    I think this supports the point - in either case the syntax for the action is 'get wood'.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago
      This whole back and forth in this subthread is ridiculous. People are comparing command syntax (not even a proper PL) with natural language syntax. First one is used to define actions first and foremost, and the second one to describe them. How we formulate our actions in our head/speech to describe them is mostly irrelevant here.