3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSo 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 agoConsidering 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 agoAny 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 agoDoes 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 agoThe 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 agoExpecting a single scientific study is not infinite burden of proof, in response to someone making a claim. It's the least to expect. Though it's convenient for you that you consider anything higher than your own standards "infinite".
- _Algernon_ 4y agoMaking a claim followed by only providing anecdotes in support just to then immediately hiding behind the "there's no convincing you"... Impressive.
- Aperocky 4y agoPlease 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.