3 ms·

> [...] everyone [...] who doesn't use vim (or similar) is probably missing out (including the author of this article) Did you read the article? The author use

> [...] everyone [...] who doesn't use vim (or similar) is probably missing out (including the author of this article) Did you read the article? The author used both emacs and vim. Quote: "I don’t like either of them, for differing reasons: modal editing doesn’t really fit my mental model of how an editor should work, [...]" I don't get how people who like modal editing can't accept that other people don't. From my experience with editor debates this weirdly seems to be much more common than the reverse. De gustibus non est disputandum.

tasuki 4y ago
> I don't get how people who like modal editing can't accept that other people don't. Hi. I like modal editing and kind of can't accept that other people don't. I think they just haven't really tried, you know? In my view, it isn't a subjective matter of preference, rather I consider modal editing to be objectively superior: we have the whole keyboard at our disposal to enter commands and manipulate the text, not just tricky key combinations. Sometimes the objection to modal editing is that you need to keep an eye on which mode you're in, but in my experience. If you're doing it right, you're always in normal mode, unless inserting text. When you finish inserting text, you immediately switch to normal mode. There, I probably haven't convinced you nor anyone else, but I'm sure all the vim users are nodding along ;)
kazinator 4y ago
There are only two kinds of non-modal editors. 1. A useless, primitive thing in which every single keystroke inserts a character or performs an edit action, and then returns to the initial state. Typically found in the simplest edit controls offered by a windowing UI, or very simple command line editors. 2. A command-oriented editor in which every action is performed by typing a line of input, terminated by Enter to execute the command. E.g. ed, almost. This is always in a command mode, which accumulates characters until Enter, executes, and returns to command mode. If there is a mode for appending lines until . (dot) is entered on a line by itself, then that is modal. Everything else is modal. I just fired up Nano. I made some changes and quit with Ctrl-X. Lo and behold, I was dropped into a mode in which I had to type y or n to save or not. Note that the usual action of these keys is to insert the characters y or n into the buffer. I issued y, and was dropped into another mode in which the characters I typed didn't insert into the buffer, but into a prompt asking for the file name.
- dolni 4y ago
  Suggesting that nano and vim are both "modal editors" because nano has some confirmation dialogs is not a deep insight, it's just pedantry. And it ignores the entire reason why you'd describe an editor as modal: that changing modes is integral to the editing experience. You can't change modes in nano to make editing more efficient.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 4y ago
    That may be the entire reason you would describe an editor as modal, but those who don't like modal editors have a different reason: they claim that they are confused by stateful behavior: that the same inputs cause different things to happen depending on what state the program is in. Usually, plenty of modal behaviors can be identified in whatever alternative they endorse. The depth of that insight is what it is.
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
> From my experience with editor debates this weirdly seems to be much more common than the reverse. This reads like confirmation bias to me, and I would argue the inverse. Otherwise, I agree with you. It’s ok that people have their own preferences.
elsjaako 4y ago
I get the feeling he occasionally used it, but not intensely for a long time. Modal editing isn't something that comes naturally. You have to train yourself to use it. I believe everyone can learn to do it as if it's natural. I learned how to use vi/vim a long time ago, and if you put me in the same position now I probably wouldn't learn to use it. It was a lot of effort. Having done it, I'm really glad I did, but it's hard to see how nice it is before you're put in the effort. I also like dancing, and often a teacher will make you move in a way that doesn't feel natural. Months later, once you've got the hang of it, it makes total sense that that's the better way. It becomes natural. Driving with a stick shift didn't feel natural at first, now I miss the clutch when it's not there. Sometimes the "unnatural" way is better. I'm guessing the same is true for the way chefs cut vegetables, or classical guitarists hold their guitar. I won't fault anyone for not using vim, I understand it's a tradeoff and not everyone wants to put in the effort. And if you don't spend a lot of time editing text, it's not worth it. Just to possibly annoy even more people: if you spend a lot of time on a keyboard, and you can't touch-type, I also feel you're missing out. (That wasn't natural for me at first either).

tasuki 4y ago

> I don't get how people who like modal editing can't accept that other people don't. Hi. I like modal editing and kind of can't accept that other people don't. I think they just haven't really tried, you know? In my view, it isn't a subjective matter of preference, rather I consider modal editing to be objectively superior: we have the whole keyboard at our disposal to enter commands and manipulate the text, not just tricky key combinations. Sometimes the objection to modal editing is that you need to keep an eye on which mode you're in, but in my experience. If you're doing it right, you're always in normal mode, unless inserting text. When you finish inserting text, you immediately switch to normal mode. There, I probably haven't convinced you nor anyone else, but I'm sure all the vim users are nodding along ;)

kazinator 4y ago

There are only two kinds of non-modal editors. 1. A useless, primitive thing in which every single keystroke inserts a character or performs an edit action, and then returns to the initial state. Typically found in the simplest edit controls offered by a windowing UI, or very simple command line editors. 2. A command-oriented editor in which every action is performed by typing a line of input, terminated by Enter to execute the command. E.g. ed, almost. This is always in a command mode, which accumulates characters until Enter, executes, and returns to command mode. If there is a mode for appending lines until . (dot) is entered on a line by itself, then that is modal. Everything else is modal. I just fired up Nano. I made some changes and quit with Ctrl-X. Lo and behold, I was dropped into a mode in which I had to type y or n to save or not. Note that the usual action of these keys is to insert the characters y or n into the buffer. I issued y, and was dropped into another mode in which the characters I typed didn't insert into the buffer, but into a prompt asking for the file name.

dolni 4y ago
Suggesting that nano and vim are both "modal editors" because nano has some confirmation dialogs is not a deep insight, it's just pedantry. And it ignores the entire reason why you'd describe an editor as modal: that changing modes is integral to the editing experience. You can't change modes in nano to make editing more efficient.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 4y ago
  That may be the entire reason you would describe an editor as modal, but those who don't like modal editors have a different reason: they claim that they are confused by stateful behavior: that the same inputs cause different things to happen depending on what state the program is in. Usually, plenty of modal behaviors can be identified in whatever alternative they endorse. The depth of that insight is what it is.

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

> From my experience with editor debates this weirdly seems to be much more common than the reverse. This reads like confirmation bias to me, and I would argue the inverse. Otherwise, I agree with you. It’s ok that people have their own preferences.

elsjaako 4y ago

I get the feeling he occasionally used it, but not intensely for a long time. Modal editing isn't something that comes naturally. You have to train yourself to use it. I believe everyone can learn to do it as if it's natural. I learned how to use vi/vim a long time ago, and if you put me in the same position now I probably wouldn't learn to use it. It was a lot of effort. Having done it, I'm really glad I did, but it's hard to see how nice it is before you're put in the effort. I also like dancing, and often a teacher will make you move in a way that doesn't feel natural. Months later, once you've got the hang of it, it makes total sense that that's the better way. It becomes natural. Driving with a stick shift didn't feel natural at first, now I miss the clutch when it's not there. Sometimes the "unnatural" way is better. I'm guessing the same is true for the way chefs cut vegetables, or classical guitarists hold their guitar. I won't fault anyone for not using vim, I understand it's a tradeoff and not everyone wants to put in the effort. And if you don't spend a lot of time editing text, it's not worth it. Just to possibly annoy even more people: if you spend a lot of time on a keyboard, and you can't touch-type, I also feel you're missing out. (That wasn't natural for me at first either).