8 ms·

This comment is ridiculous. Being "anti-vim" is perfectly alright with me. I use vim because it's the fastest thing I've ever used by a very wide margin. I als

This comment is ridiculous. Being "anti-vim" is perfectly alright with me. I use vim because it's the fastest thing I've ever used by a very wide margin. I also respect others who find it too hard to learn or find they're more productive elsewhere. But a comment that essentially boils down to "vim is archaic" in a post about vim usage habits is totally ridiculous, so in the nicest way possible, get lost.

lutusp 14y ago
> But a comment that essentially boils down to "vim is archaic" in a post about vim usage habits is totally ridiculous ... And entirely topical. Young programmers who read such posts may not realize how many more efficient options are now available. Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013.
- mdpye 14y ago
  Perhaps you'd care to share some of them and their advantages with the younger and older coders who've never come across them? Otherwise - in a slightly less nice way than last time - get lost.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Otherwise - in a slightly less nice way than last time - get lost. If that's your argument in favor of vi/vim, then other vi/vim users may ask you not to be on their side.
- kiwim 14y ago
  Oooh. I'd love to hear those many more efficient options!
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I'd love to hear those many more efficient options! This may come as a surprise, but modern programming editors don't require the operator to switch between three mutually exclusive modes -- insert, delete and navigate. That's because modern keyboards have keys dedicated to those purposes, which means the operator doesn't have to either wonder which mode he is in, or switch modes, which saves an enormous amount of time when programming. The first step toward modern editing is use of the arrow keys for navigation. The next step is to realize, if the arrow keys can reposition the cursor without using letter keys, then maybe there's no reason to have to switch modes. Vim's focus on keyboards that no longer exist, and on displays that no longer exist (including the paper terminal I used with vi while working for NASA forty years ago), requires an incredible number of unnecessary keystrokes, as exemplified in this typical conversation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379198/in-vim-how-do-i-delete-a-word-and-go-into-insert-mode http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379198/in-vim-how-do-i-d... Notice that no one says "have you considered solving the problem by changing editors?"
    - JulianWasTaken 14y ago
      > This may come as a surprise, but modern programming editors don't require the operator to switch between three mutually exclusive modes -- insert, delete and navigate. That's because modern keyboards have keys dedicated to those purposes, which means the operator doesn't have to either wonder which mode he is in, or switch modes, which saves an enormous amount of time when programming. You speak as if modal editing came first and universally agreed upon better things evolved afterwards. I know this isn't true. I know you know this isn't true. You're being highly disingenuous. Your link is equally disingenuous since you either don't understand that the operation involved there is not one you can do in-stride or with as few keys in any other "modern" editor, or if I give you slightly more credit but presume malice then you're being willfully misleading again.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > You speak as if modal editing came first and universally agreed upon better things evolved afterwards. That's exactly what happened, and think before objecting, because I was there. I used vi while working for NASA during the 1970s, when mode changes made sense (it saved paper on paper terminals). Since then, it has stopped making sense. > I know this isn't true. I know you know this isn't true. You're being highly disingenuous. When I wrote Apple Writer in the late 1970s, I suspected it would become popular because it eliminated the modes that plagued most contemporary editors including vi. I was right -- it did. Apple Writer became a best-seller because people hadn't yet realized that modes and mode switching were pointless burdens in a era of glass terminals and extended keyboards. I can't believe there are people who haven't learned this elementary lesson now, over 30 years later.
- klibertp 14y ago
  I would really like to know what options are there that are more efficient than VIM for text editing... And when talking about IDEs and code writing remember to include VIM plugins in comparison.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I would really like to know what options are there that are more efficient than VIM for text editing... In answer, I have to say that nearly every other text editor that exists is more efficient than vi/vim. Modern editors are mode-free, meaning (don't faint) you don't have to change modes to insert, delete and navigate. These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat. Vi/vim is the oldest editor still commonly available. I used it in the 1970s when I worked for NASA, on a "paper terminal". In that environment, its quirks made sense because they saved paper. Since then, it has been completely superseded by newer, better programs. Even my now-ancient program Apple Writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer) was easier to use, largely because my program addressed and solved some of vi's more annoying problems. There's a reason Apple Writer became a best-seller -- one of them was that fact that, by eliminating modes, it represented a huge improvement over existing editors, including vi. But that was the early 1980s. If I had been told then that I would still be trying to get people to use more efficient editors over 30 years, later I would have laughed -- impossible!
    - falcolas 14y ago
      Speaking only to one of your many weak arguments: > These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat. I haven't used a cheat sheet with vim in years now. I don't think I used a cheat sheet after a month of using vim. `:w` is as natural to me as ctrl-s. Slightly more natural, because I don't have to think in order to turn a save into a save as, if I want to write the contents to another file. And if we want to talk cheat sheets, wouldn't you consider menus in non-modal editors to be cheat sheets, since they show both the keyboard shortcut, and the action, side by side?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sofal 14y ago
  You're commenting on a vim post in order to help lost young programmers understand that there are other options besides vim? Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013. Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language? I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > You're commenting on a vim post in order to help lost young programmers understand that there are other options besides vim? Yes, and what better place? > Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language? Based on the number of objections to a discussion of vim's alternatives, yes -- that's a legitimate comparison. > I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s. Only in the midst of an amazing discussion that included various "cheat-sheet" strategies to get around the behaviors of an editor that demands cheating to be productive. Given that context, saying that newer editors don't require you to cheat seems entirely topical.
alinajaf 14y ago
2 points: > This comment is ridiculous. Yes. However, I would point out that eventually this productivity thing matters i.e. more productive developers will be able to effect more change in the world faster than less productive developers. While I'm all for sharing knowledge, if my competition is putting creative effort into hobbling themselves, then I say leave them to it. > I use vim because it's the fastest thing I've ever used by a very wide margin. I used to think this, but then I paired with someone who was eye-wateringly fast with TextMate (that person has since converted to using vim full-time). Rather than speed, for me at least, its always been about fluency (how little cognitive load is there between thinking and the code appearing). I happen to be a lot faster than most IDE clowns I happen to be working with, but I believe that's a happy side-effect.
xtracto 14y ago
I use vim for some things (mainly script and minor XML editing) and IDEs for other things. I would never attempt to develop a big C, Java or even Ruby (after trying RubyMine) system in. Stuff that refactoring, finding usage-of and looking at call-hierarchy are some of the things that are either only done in a 'patchy' way or non-existent in Vim.
- vitalique 14y ago
  Try using IdeaVim plugin with RubyMine. It's a real gem.

lutusp 14y ago

> But a comment that essentially boils down to "vim is archaic" in a post about vim usage habits is totally ridiculous ... And entirely topical. Young programmers who read such posts may not realize how many more efficient options are now available. Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013.

mdpye 14y ago
Perhaps you'd care to share some of them and their advantages with the younger and older coders who've never come across them? Otherwise - in a slightly less nice way than last time - get lost.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Otherwise - in a slightly less nice way than last time - get lost. If that's your argument in favor of vi/vim, then other vi/vim users may ask you not to be on their side.
kiwim 14y ago
Oooh. I'd love to hear those many more efficient options!
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I'd love to hear those many more efficient options! This may come as a surprise, but modern programming editors don't require the operator to switch between three mutually exclusive modes -- insert, delete and navigate. That's because modern keyboards have keys dedicated to those purposes, which means the operator doesn't have to either wonder which mode he is in, or switch modes, which saves an enormous amount of time when programming. The first step toward modern editing is use of the arrow keys for navigation. The next step is to realize, if the arrow keys can reposition the cursor without using letter keys, then maybe there's no reason to have to switch modes. Vim's focus on keyboards that no longer exist, and on displays that no longer exist (including the paper terminal I used with vi while working for NASA forty years ago), requires an incredible number of unnecessary keystrokes, as exemplified in this typical conversation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379198/in-vim-how-do-i-delete-a-word-and-go-into-insert-mode http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379198/in-vim-how-do-i-d... Notice that no one says "have you considered solving the problem by changing editors?"
  - JulianWasTaken 14y ago
    > This may come as a surprise, but modern programming editors don't require the operator to switch between three mutually exclusive modes -- insert, delete and navigate. That's because modern keyboards have keys dedicated to those purposes, which means the operator doesn't have to either wonder which mode he is in, or switch modes, which saves an enormous amount of time when programming. You speak as if modal editing came first and universally agreed upon better things evolved afterwards. I know this isn't true. I know you know this isn't true. You're being highly disingenuous. Your link is equally disingenuous since you either don't understand that the operation involved there is not one you can do in-stride or with as few keys in any other "modern" editor, or if I give you slightly more credit but presume malice then you're being willfully misleading again.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > You speak as if modal editing came first and universally agreed upon better things evolved afterwards. That's exactly what happened, and think before objecting, because I was there. I used vi while working for NASA during the 1970s, when mode changes made sense (it saved paper on paper terminals). Since then, it has stopped making sense. > I know this isn't true. I know you know this isn't true. You're being highly disingenuous. When I wrote Apple Writer in the late 1970s, I suspected it would become popular because it eliminated the modes that plagued most contemporary editors including vi. I was right -- it did. Apple Writer became a best-seller because people hadn't yet realized that modes and mode switching were pointless burdens in a era of glass terminals and extended keyboards. I can't believe there are people who haven't learned this elementary lesson now, over 30 years later.
klibertp 14y ago
I would really like to know what options are there that are more efficient than VIM for text editing... And when talking about IDEs and code writing remember to include VIM plugins in comparison.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I would really like to know what options are there that are more efficient than VIM for text editing... In answer, I have to say that nearly every other text editor that exists is more efficient than vi/vim. Modern editors are mode-free, meaning (don't faint) you don't have to change modes to insert, delete and navigate. These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat. Vi/vim is the oldest editor still commonly available. I used it in the 1970s when I worked for NASA, on a "paper terminal". In that environment, its quirks made sense because they saved paper. Since then, it has been completely superseded by newer, better programs. Even my now-ancient program Apple Writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer) was easier to use, largely because my program addressed and solved some of vi's more annoying problems. There's a reason Apple Writer became a best-seller -- one of them was that fact that, by eliminating modes, it represented a huge improvement over existing editors, including vi. But that was the early 1980s. If I had been told then that I would still be trying to get people to use more efficient editors over 30 years, later I would have laughed -- impossible!
  - falcolas 14y ago
    Speaking only to one of your many weak arguments: > These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat. I haven't used a cheat sheet with vim in years now. I don't think I used a cheat sheet after a month of using vim. `:w` is as natural to me as ctrl-s. Slightly more natural, because I don't have to think in order to turn a save into a save as, if I want to write the contents to another file. And if we want to talk cheat sheets, wouldn't you consider menus in non-modal editors to be cheat sheets, since they show both the keyboard shortcut, and the action, side by side?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sofal 14y ago
You're commenting on a vim post in order to help lost young programmers understand that there are other options besides vim? Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013. Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language? I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > You're commenting on a vim post in order to help lost young programmers understand that there are other options besides vim? Yes, and what better place? > Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language? Based on the number of objections to a discussion of vim's alternatives, yes -- that's a legitimate comparison. > I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s. Only in the midst of an amazing discussion that included various "cheat-sheet" strategies to get around the behaviors of an editor that demands cheating to be productive. Given that context, saying that newer editors don't require you to cheat seems entirely topical.

alinajaf 14y ago

2 points: > This comment is ridiculous. Yes. However, I would point out that eventually this productivity thing matters i.e. more productive developers will be able to effect more change in the world faster than less productive developers. While I'm all for sharing knowledge, if my competition is putting creative effort into hobbling themselves, then I say leave them to it. > I use vim because it's the fastest thing I've ever used by a very wide margin. I used to think this, but then I paired with someone who was eye-wateringly fast with TextMate (that person has since converted to using vim full-time). Rather than speed, for me at least, its always been about fluency (how little cognitive load is there between thinking and the code appearing). I happen to be a lot faster than most IDE clowns I happen to be working with, but I believe that's a happy side-effect.

xtracto 14y ago

I use vim for some things (mainly script and minor XML editing) and IDEs for other things. I would never attempt to develop a big C, Java or even Ruby (after trying RubyMine) system in. Stuff that refactoring, finding usage-of and looking at call-hierarchy are some of the things that are either only done in a 'patchy' way or non-existent in Vim.

vitalique 14y ago
Try using IdeaVim plugin with RubyMine. It's a real gem.