4 ms·
> There's only so many things one can usefully commit to memory Can you refer to any scientific research to back up that statement? My impression is that the m
by rhizome31 15y ago
> There's only so many things one can usefully commit to memory
Can you refer to any scientific research to back up that statement? My impression is that the more you use your memory, the easier it is to remember new stuff. Memory seems to be more like a muscle, the more you use it the stronger it gets, rather than a bucket that can get filled up.
- robryan 15y agoI think it's sensible if thought of as more time investment rather than how much you can commit to memory. Learning something like vim is going to take some time and is perfectly reasonable to question if there is a whole other stack of things you are also attempting to become proficient in.
- revscat 15y agoIt is reasonable, but... I have been using vi/vim for almost 15 years now. Various technologies have come and gone (or persisted), but the underlying tool I use to make them sing has not. Early in my career I made the decision to learn vim, and it is not a decision I have ever regretted. Yes, it meant that in the beginning there were things that took me longer to do. But now? Now I can do so much more so much quicker. And after a while -- and it is not all that long of a while -- it becomes second nature. The fundamentals become a part of your fingers, just like touch typing. You no longer have to hunt and peck to type out the word "lightning". You just do it. vim's keybindings become similarly engrained. It just takes practice.
- burgerbrain 15y agoI voted you up since I agree with your muscle premise in real world situations with realistic amounts of information, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound ;)