4 ms·

Well there's no convincing you then. The pros of modal editing is well documented, and I'm not even arguing about the superiority of vim over the likes of emac

Well there's no convincing you then. The pros of modal editing is well documented, and I'm not even arguing about the superiority of vim over the likes of emacs. People who believe using cursor to select, move, copy stuff are better than modal editing, even after all the argument, is probably not going to be swayed ever. As an almost pure vim user, I know how my own speed are significantly improved ever since I adopted vim and its modals, and I don't need to mentally construct keystrokes just like most people don't need to look at a keyboard to type. The demonstration are mostly some edge cases that don't really happen, but the general speed over general editing, some `V}y` here, some `ci(` there, some `Vjj2>`, `c-vwwGx` etc is what makes vim really shine. And no we don't have to dig a dictionary to type those things, all I had to do was to open vim since that's how muscle memory works.

p-e-w 4y ago
> The pros of modal editing is well documented Finally! Someone who knows where that elusive data is hidden that actually shows why modal editing is better. Wait, did you forget to link to the study?
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Like I said, there's no convincing you. On previous tens of discussion surely someone has came up with something, only for you to dismiss it as gimmicky. I am not going to spend much effort on a lost cause, but quick googling came up with this blog: https://eli-rodriguez.com/en/posts/modal-editing-the-superior-way-of-editing/ https://eli-rodriguez.com/en/posts/modal-editing-the-superio... Enjoy moving your cursor around when you edit text, but welcome to the club if I am wrong and you can be convinced.
  - p-e-w 4y ago
    So no data at all, just anecdotes from zealots. You're right, that's not going to convince me. Because I apply the same basic standard of plausibility that I do to all claims I hear. When someone tells me I should start using homeopathy, and there's no need for any actual evidence in favor of it because the benefits are "well known" to its practitioners, I don't need to hear any more to make up my mind. This is really no different.
    - Aperocky 4y ago
      Considering this is a subjective interest, what kind of data are you looking for? A measuring contest that happen to control on individual skills? What kind of data may satisfy your high bar of acceptance? Let's take a step back from vim: what kind of data will demonstrate satisfactory performance over any kind of editor for your liking?
      - p-e-w 4y ago
        Any published study comparing performance of experienced modal vs. non-modal editor users on common tasks would be interesting already. Basically, standard UX research stuff. Figuring out how to control for differences in skill etc. is literally the job of people who conduct such research. I mean, there are studies examining how the quality of Git commits is affected by blood alcohol levels, so that doesn't seem like an overly exotic topic by comparison.
        Aperocky 4y ago
        Does any such academic study exist for any editor comparison? Since according to you these are "literally the job of people" and "standard UX research stuff". This seems like a classic case of setting the bar arbitrarily high to stifle discussion - I cannot find any, but would love to be proven wrong.
        _Algernon_ 4y ago
        > Does any such academic study exist for any editor comparison? I don't know, you tell me. You're making the claim that one is superior. The burden of proof is on you.
        Aperocky 4y ago
        The burden of proof is not infinite. Asking specifically to a level of proof that does not exist either way on a subject that does not pertains to such a level of proof is merely stifling discussion, not to mention that the claim that the editors are equal in capability are not immediately obvious and proof absolving.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    Making a claim followed by only providing anecdotes in support just to then immediately hiding behind the "there's no convincing you"... Impressive.
    - Aperocky 4y ago
      Please read the entire the comment chain, the burden of proof is set arbitrarily high, which was suspected from the beginning due to the comment that was initially replied to, hence "no convincing you". This is made especially difficult by the subjective nature of discussion.
throw_a_grenade 4y ago
My favourite is rST headlines: yypVr-

p-e-w 4y ago

> The pros of modal editing is well documented Finally! Someone who knows where that elusive data is hidden that actually shows why modal editing is better. Wait, did you forget to link to the study?

Aperocky 4y ago
Like I said, there's no convincing you. On previous tens of discussion surely someone has came up with something, only for you to dismiss it as gimmicky. I am not going to spend much effort on a lost cause, but quick googling came up with this blog: https://eli-rodriguez.com/en/posts/modal-editing-the-superior-way-of-editing/ https://eli-rodriguez.com/en/posts/modal-editing-the-superio... Enjoy moving your cursor around when you edit text, but welcome to the club if I am wrong and you can be convinced.
- p-e-w 4y ago
  So no data at all, just anecdotes from zealots. You're right, that's not going to convince me. Because I apply the same basic standard of plausibility that I do to all claims I hear. When someone tells me I should start using homeopathy, and there's no need for any actual evidence in favor of it because the benefits are "well known" to its practitioners, I don't need to hear any more to make up my mind. This is really no different.
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    Considering this is a subjective interest, what kind of data are you looking for? A measuring contest that happen to control on individual skills? What kind of data may satisfy your high bar of acceptance? Let's take a step back from vim: what kind of data will demonstrate satisfactory performance over any kind of editor for your liking?
    - p-e-w 4y ago
      Any published study comparing performance of experienced modal vs. non-modal editor users on common tasks would be interesting already. Basically, standard UX research stuff. Figuring out how to control for differences in skill etc. is literally the job of people who conduct such research. I mean, there are studies examining how the quality of Git commits is affected by blood alcohol levels, so that doesn't seem like an overly exotic topic by comparison.
      - Aperocky 4y ago
        Does any such academic study exist for any editor comparison? Since according to you these are "literally the job of people" and "standard UX research stuff". This seems like a classic case of setting the bar arbitrarily high to stifle discussion - I cannot find any, but would love to be proven wrong.
        _Algernon_ 4y ago
        > Does any such academic study exist for any editor comparison? I don't know, you tell me. You're making the claim that one is superior. The burden of proof is on you.
        Aperocky 4y ago
        The burden of proof is not infinite. Asking specifically to a level of proof that does not exist either way on a subject that does not pertains to such a level of proof is merely stifling discussion, not to mention that the claim that the editors are equal in capability are not immediately obvious and proof absolving.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  Making a claim followed by only providing anecdotes in support just to then immediately hiding behind the "there's no convincing you"... Impressive.
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    Please read the entire the comment chain, the burden of proof is set arbitrarily high, which was suspected from the beginning due to the comment that was initially replied to, hence "no convincing you". This is made especially difficult by the subjective nature of discussion.

throw_a_grenade 4y ago

My favourite is rST headlines: yypVr-