3 ms·

> `:w` is as natural to me as ctrl-s. Yep. And it is two keystrokes instead of one. Wouldn't it be more efficient to eliminate one of those keystrokes rather t

by lutusp 14y ago

> `:w` is as natural to me as ctrl-s. Yep. And it is two keystrokes instead of one. Wouldn't it be more efficient to eliminate one of those keystrokes rather than committing them to memory? That's the approach taken by all editors written since about 1980, so it seems to be an idea whose time has come -- and passed. > 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? The "cheat sheets" I refer to are those that map multiple-keystroke sequences to the actions that, in a modern editor, require one keystroke.

falcolas 14y ago
> And it is two keystrokes instead of one. Technically, it's three keystrokes instead of two. And you have to commit ctrl-s (or cmd-s if you're on a mac) to memory just as much as you do :w. Nothing really saved there. > The "cheat sheets" I refer to are those that map multiple-keystroke sequences to the actions that, in a modern editor, require one keystroke. Like delete the next four words? How do I do that in a modern editor with a single keystroke? How about "replace everything inside these quotes"? Or repeat the last action I just took again? I'm glad you like your modern editors (there's lots there to love), but they are not inherently better than vim just because they're non-modal. There is typically a more shallow learning curve than VIM, but the simple virtue of being non-modal doesn't guarantee that (sorry, Emacs). In the end, two things sealed the deal for VIM for me. 1) it's on every remote server I have to access, and 2) I've put the time into it, so I'm quite efficient in it. In my last job, since I was only doing local development, I tried out Sublime Text 2 for a good 3 months before giving up on it. I was constantly thinking "I know how to do this in vim - how do I do it here?", and ultimately, I got tired of constantly reaching for the mouse for trivial things like selecting and moving text. I felt that 3 months was sufficient to really give ST2 a fair shake, so I didn't (and still don't) feel bad when I went back to the terminal.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I'm glad you like your modern editors (there's lots there to love), but they are not inherently better than vim just because they're non-modal. Yes, in point of fact, they are better than vi/vim because they are non-modal. When all is said and done, dropping vi's modes makes an editor better and more efficient. > Like delete the next four words? How do I do that in a modern editor with a single keystroke? You can't delete four words with a single keystroke. You can delete [N] words, but only after switching modes and choosing the desired number. Source: http://www.lagmonster.org/docs/vi2.html#delete http://www.lagmonster.org/docs/vi2.html#delete Quote: "ndw : Deletes the next n words starting with current" The above assumes you're already switched to the required mode, so a minimum of four keystrokes if the number [N] is a single digit. Then, to continue typing, you have to switch back to the mode you started from. Total five keystrokes minimum. > In the end, two things sealed the deal for VIM for me. 1) it's on every remote server I have to access, and 2) I've put the time into it, so I'm quite efficient in it. This is circular reasoning. The reason vi or vim is out there on all those servers is because of the number of people who haven't learned anything else.
  - zargon 14y ago
    You were the one who claimed all the multi-keystroke shortcuts were possible in one keystroke, not falcolas. Plenty of us switched to vim after using mouse-oriented editors for years or decades. Why are you so offended that we have different preferences than you?
    - lotics2 14y ago
      Not just different preferences, but a different way of thinking about using computers. I naturally evolved from using notepad > edit plus > notepad++ > vim. I had simply reached the point where I was tired of moving with a mouse, arrow keys, shift-arrow keys, dialog menus, watching coworkers gather to talk about how broken Eclipse is that day, regex not being more prominent. I was tired of "you can't do that." The number of keystrokes used is irrelevant because this is the optimal generalization of how to perform an action on some text. As in I could turn my screen off, open this file, perform the action an save the file and be sure of the result. So I could map a single key delete four words in vim, but why would anyone do that? It's easier to think "I want to delete four words" and have my fingers do that from muscle memory. That's exactly what it feels like to use ci" when I want to "change inside double quotes" - I tell my editor what I want to do and it moves the cursor for me without needing to peck at the arrow keys N times. I decided to accept nothing less than tools that are reliable and work exactly the same way every day until I want to change something. I don't care about following someone else's idea of what features or keybindings should be in my text editor; instead I started from a blank slate and added what I wanted. This has the side effect of making it incredibly obvious when I change something that causes the editor to behave in a way that I don't expect or to slow down.
    - zargon 14y ago
      lotics2, your comment is "dead" and so are your other 2 comments. In case you didn't know.

by lutusp 14y ago

falcolas 14y ago

> And it is two keystrokes instead of one. Technically, it's three keystrokes instead of two. And you have to commit ctrl-s (or cmd-s if you're on a mac) to memory just as much as you do :w. Nothing really saved there. > The "cheat sheets" I refer to are those that map multiple-keystroke sequences to the actions that, in a modern editor, require one keystroke. Like delete the next four words? How do I do that in a modern editor with a single keystroke? How about "replace everything inside these quotes"? Or repeat the last action I just took again? I'm glad you like your modern editors (there's lots there to love), but they are not inherently better than vim just because they're non-modal. There is typically a more shallow learning curve than VIM, but the simple virtue of being non-modal doesn't guarantee that (sorry, Emacs). In the end, two things sealed the deal for VIM for me. 1) it's on every remote server I have to access, and 2) I've put the time into it, so I'm quite efficient in it. In my last job, since I was only doing local development, I tried out Sublime Text 2 for a good 3 months before giving up on it. I was constantly thinking "I know how to do this in vim - how do I do it here?", and ultimately, I got tired of constantly reaching for the mouse for trivial things like selecting and moving text. I felt that 3 months was sufficient to really give ST2 a fair shake, so I didn't (and still don't) feel bad when I went back to the terminal.

lutusp 14y ago
> I'm glad you like your modern editors (there's lots there to love), but they are not inherently better than vim just because they're non-modal. Yes, in point of fact, they are better than vi/vim because they are non-modal. When all is said and done, dropping vi's modes makes an editor better and more efficient. > Like delete the next four words? How do I do that in a modern editor with a single keystroke? You can't delete four words with a single keystroke. You can delete [N] words, but only after switching modes and choosing the desired number. Source: http://www.lagmonster.org/docs/vi2.html#delete http://www.lagmonster.org/docs/vi2.html#delete Quote: "ndw : Deletes the next n words starting with current" The above assumes you're already switched to the required mode, so a minimum of four keystrokes if the number [N] is a single digit. Then, to continue typing, you have to switch back to the mode you started from. Total five keystrokes minimum. > In the end, two things sealed the deal for VIM for me. 1) it's on every remote server I have to access, and 2) I've put the time into it, so I'm quite efficient in it. This is circular reasoning. The reason vi or vim is out there on all those servers is because of the number of people who haven't learned anything else.
- zargon 14y ago
  You were the one who claimed all the multi-keystroke shortcuts were possible in one keystroke, not falcolas. Plenty of us switched to vim after using mouse-oriented editors for years or decades. Why are you so offended that we have different preferences than you?
  - lotics2 14y ago
    Not just different preferences, but a different way of thinking about using computers. I naturally evolved from using notepad > edit plus > notepad++ > vim. I had simply reached the point where I was tired of moving with a mouse, arrow keys, shift-arrow keys, dialog menus, watching coworkers gather to talk about how broken Eclipse is that day, regex not being more prominent. I was tired of "you can't do that." The number of keystrokes used is irrelevant because this is the optimal generalization of how to perform an action on some text. As in I could turn my screen off, open this file, perform the action an save the file and be sure of the result. So I could map a single key delete four words in vim, but why would anyone do that? It's easier to think "I want to delete four words" and have my fingers do that from muscle memory. That's exactly what it feels like to use ci" when I want to "change inside double quotes" - I tell my editor what I want to do and it moves the cursor for me without needing to peck at the arrow keys N times. I decided to accept nothing less than tools that are reliable and work exactly the same way every day until I want to change something. I don't care about following someone else's idea of what features or keybindings should be in my text editor; instead I started from a blank slate and added what I wanted. This has the side effect of making it incredibly obvious when I change something that causes the editor to behave in a way that I don't expect or to slow down.
  - zargon 14y ago
    lotics2, your comment is "dead" and so are your other 2 comments. In case you didn't know.