5 ms·

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

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
        Expecting 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".

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
      Expecting 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".