Non-Vim users are novices that are just "not there yet", when it comes to text-editing. The Vim way is the most simple and effective way to edit text by means of a keyboard. Like Lisp and the Dvorak keyboard, it's alien, but it's actually simpler. Maybe, now that touch-screens are becoming commonplace, an equally or more effective new way will be developed.
My guess is GP knows how to use Vim, and yet he's happy to use something else... but many Vim users can't imagine that scenario.
I personally know and like Vim and Emacs, but I'm using ST2 because those editors lose some of their greatness on vanilla Windows. And Emacs keybindings do hurt my wrists.
Also, I could never get really fast at editing multiple files inside a single Vim session. Nothing near Emacs with ido.el or vanilla ST2. I already tried Lusty* packages and Nerd* packages... It's also kinda hard to prevent :q from quitting the whole editor, which always bugged me.
When I open it from the terminal for a quick fix on a single file, Vim works very naturally and I think, once more, "hey that edit was easy and fast - why not switch to it as my main editor?"...
You've proved my point. In your words Vi-style editing is "natural", "easy" and "fast". Vi-style is better than Emacs-style because the latter "do hurt my wrists", thus discarding the only worthy contender.
The only reason you are using another editing model is because you've found the tools offering Vi-style editing to be lacking in important areas.
Sublime may be better than Vim as an overall editor in your particular case even when the editing model of Sublime is less efficient than the one of Vim. We agree on this: we don't live in a perfect world. Indeed, even Vi-style editing is not perfect, as it was designed for a different keyboard than those which are commonplace nowadays.
RIght, right. Unfortunately I can't convince my brain to accept that Sublime+Vintage works like Vim. I need to be in Vim to trigger the Vim mode of thinking in my brain...
I'm curious though: I thought it was Emacs that had a special keyboard in the old days. What do you think could be easier in Vim with a different keyboard? (I can only think of ESC position).
Not much, actually, besides : which was unshifted. But we shouldn't overlook people who try to use Vi(m) on keyboards other than the US one. For instance, on the Italian layout, / and ? are both shifted, and on different keys, thus causing their relationship to be less intuitive, and further from the home row.
Well, there is Vim and there is the Vi-editing style. My understanding was we were talking about the latter. In such case, I admit I couldn't think of a proficient Vi-clone user switching to any other editing model.
>Non-Vim users are novices that are just "not there yet", when it comes to text-editing.
Religious war nonsense. Vim still uses modal editing, which we've known to be a mistake for how many decades now? Sure, vi is better than Notepad. Congratulations.
Mmmmm... Modality a mistake? Seemingly, it depends on whom you ask. People have been using it for millennia in their languages (many words change meaning according to their context, context being the "mode"). Musicians have been using it proficiently for centuries for their music sheets(notes on the music staff change according to tonality, tonality being the "mode"). Nowadays (most? many?) people use modality every day on their mobile phones (e.g. T9 has a modal keyboard). Could it be that studies about modality were flawed? I think so. For instance, if you teach modality in the wrong way, I agree you will "realize" that modality is ineffective. I had an hard time using T9 before being told how to use it effectively, and I have helped a couple of people who hated it as well. And I had an hard time using Vim before being told how to use it effectively.
> There is at least one study that talks about this.
I couldn't find any. Could anyone provide some pointers, please?
> I'm talking about modal editing. Obviously I'm not against context.
When scientific proof lacks, appropriate analogies can be our only tool in analyzing a issue and reaching a conclusion. My point is that people don't seem to have issues with modality in other contexts, provided that they know how to cope with it, thus why should I doubt their ability to cope with modality while editing?
> This isn't how we progress. Do you have a study that demonstrates the opposite? Then claiming the study was flawed is meaningless.
Sadly, progress is slower than we wish. If a study contradicting empirical evidence is flawed, it doesn't prove anything, for empirical evidence wins and we are back to square one.
> I knew how to use it just fine, but mode management slows everything down.
This proves that some people have issues with modal editing. Why? Maybe:
- they didn't approach it effectively (in the case of Vim, they lingered in Insert mode);
- their tools were inappropriate (in the case of Vim, the Esc key was too far).
- or modal editing requires some mental capability which not everyone possess (some people can type on Dvorak and Qwerty, indifferently);
- or modal thinking is a learned skill;
- or...
If we can solve this problem, instead of saying that modal editing is better, we could say that modal editing is better when some conditions are met.
EDIT: I've also thought about reasons for Vi-style editing not being as superior as it was in the past:
- keyboard layouts do not resemble the keyboard layout used while designing Vi;
- keyboards with integrated touch-pads and/or track-pads are available to make switching to a pointing device quicker.
