Time to get out of your two-editor bubble, folks; there are other options. In my opinion, Acme puts both Emacs and Vim to shame.
Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
121–130 of 145 posts
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
These don't seem like the most sound criticisms honestly. It's still a command-line editor. Just like vi. Not sure what the issue is there? It cannot take advantage of the modern computing environment gvim/macvim exists. They also give you regular clipboard support. Though I honestly don't get much out of all that, and am happy enough with vim in a terminal, but I understand the motivation. To perform multiple operat…
> These don't seem like the most sound criticisms honestly. So Steve Jobs was wrong to visit Xerox Parc, be impressed by what he saw, and create the modern computer? > Vim is modal, yes, but what is the specific disadvantage of that? It is less efficient. But you are now obviously trolling, posing arguments that no rational person could possibly accept. "So, a few more keystrokes for each command, repeated for each s…
It is less efficient. But you are now obviously trolling, posing arguments that no rational person could possibly accept. "So, a few more keystrokes for each command, repeated for each such command. So what? Are you in a hurry to get somewhere? Do you want to live forever?"
I said no such thing. I said a keypress is more efficient than alternatives, and thus more efficient and faster.
Please reconsider who an external observer would mark as a troll in this conversation. But in fact, I don't think you're trolling, you just hate vim, and that's fine. And I like vim, and that doesn't make me a troll I hope.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * To perform multiple operations, like moving the cursor around, entering text, deleting text, searching the document, saving and loading files, requires you to switch modes. Just like vi. All these operations, except entering text, are available from "normal" mode which is the default mode. This is factually incorrect that you need to switch mode to delete something, or save a file.
> All these operations, except entering text, are available from "normal" mode which is the default mode. Assertion: vim has modes. > This is factually incorrect that you need to switch mode to delete something, or save a file. Assertion: vim doesn't have modes. Only one of the above claims can be true. Choose which one you want to defend, and delete the other. But don't try to delete it with vim, or we'll be here al…
> Only one of the above claims can be true.
Really?
> Assertion: vim doesn't have modes.
No,it is not an assertion that vim doesn't have modes, it is an assertion that you don't have to change mode to do some things
>I feel like I'm discussing whether there was a literal garden of Eden with a religious True Believer. True Believers famously make claims they haven't bothered to compare to reality before speaking.
Guess who is this True Believer
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're wrong and he is right and now it is clear that you're just laughing
> No, you're wrong and he is right ... That's for sure. In a single post he asserted both that there are modes, and there aren't modes. That leaves no room for another viewpoint. There's one sure way to win an argument -- assert all possible viewpoints, declare victory, and depart the field.
No, he has not asserted that vim doesn't have modes and if you're seriously claiming that then it is clear that you have a serious cognitive problem
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, the arrows work (should work, may be a problem on some terminals/terminal emulators, but that's common for console editors) It's not common in modern times for any of this to be either necessary or justifiable. But now that we're no longer discussing how inefficient vim is, but discussing tricks meant to minimize its acknowledged inefficiency, I think we're done. > > I wold pass the mouse cursor across the desi…
> It's not common in modern times for any of this Any of which? Please, be more precise. You mean that it's not common for certain keys to be mixed up in console applications? Please... > You can measure it by noticing that most modern computers since 1980 have Oh well, you have a curious definition of measurement then. > some spoilsport may mention that the entire exercise is unnecessary You mean editing text is unn…
This is one of the strangest threads I've been involved in on HN. I feel like we're just being baited by a clever troll. Attacked with adhomenens and given strawman agruements. Just to say - I'm aligned with your views and I know it doesn't matter - but it's annoying to be insulted by a hypocrite.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#126The reason there's no project-wide find and replace in vim is that vim has no concept of a project. It's designed to be one of many tools, which works really well for some workflows and not for others. #5 is the same deal -- they're limited by the design of vim, and that design doesn't fit anything like TextMate's project search. It would drive me _crazy_ if vim saved without me telling it to. I think a lot of people…
The only thing that drives me crazy about the save/do-you-want-to-reload prompt is actually a git related issue. When you commit, git updates all committed files in some way that triggers vim change detection. You go back to vim, write some code, try to save and then you get this DANGER WILL ROBINSON message. It's horrible because you're not quite sure sometimes if there was a legitimate change made in another proces…
Wow, that sounds nuts. What OS are you running? I've never actually seen this happen before.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elsewhere in this thread you're saying that Vim can't use mouse and clipboard. Of course it can - "=y copies to system clipboard instead of local one. 1. Thanks for correcting me. 2. Four characters. Very efficient. 3. All to avoid using any control keys. The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys, and vim must work exactly like vi. Not only do modern keyboards have contr…
Your arguments are inconsistent and frequently plainly wrong. You refuse to recognize them as such even if they are proved to be false multiple times. Instead you're skipping from one argument to another, if we're lucky enough to hear actual argument, because for the most time you're just saying that Vim sucks because you think it sucks. It's really hard to have a discussion in such a setting and because I know you'r…
> Your arguments are inconsistent and frequently plainly wrong.
It's too bad you're unable to find any examples to support this claim. On that topic, here's just one of your outright lies:
[ my remark ]
>> All to avoid using any control keys. The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys, and vim must work exactly like vi.
[ your reply ]
> That's what you wrote. It's all false.
As a matter of fact, more key entries are always required in vi and vim compared to a modern editor, and two, the control scheme in vi and vim arises from the requirement that it avoid the use of control keys. That was a design requirement, because the original machines it was designed for did not have control or navigation keys. How do I know this? I used those computers, and I used the early versions of the programs under discussion.
Since then, the machines have changed, but vi and vim have not changed.
Stop lying.
> I wanted to, but I think I won't comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it carries no substance whatsoever.
I already used repeated and substantial evidence to prove that that you are lying, and you just lied again.
> And that's all modality does, by itself - replaces a few modifier keys with a single one. It has no impact on average count of keystrokes.
I and others have already proved that this lie is, in point of fact, a lie. Mode-limited editors require more keystrokes than those without modes. Mode-limited editors require you to be aware of, and to change, modes. Those mode changes require extra keystrokes.
* Vi/vim, switch from moving the cursor to editing text: Esc, Esc, :, i, fist text entry. Four additional keystrokes. Newer versions have s shortcut in which you can just press i, to switch modes, one additional keystroke. But all version of vi and vim always require additional keystrokes, compared to a modern editor.
* Modern editor, switch from moving the cursor to entering text: Just start entering text, no additional keystrokes required.
You are lying.
> We're really not interested in ed, ex and vi early history
First, based on the positive votes on my posts, there is no "we" that lacks interest, and second, one of the the reasons your post is so misguided is because you don't know anything about the history you feign disinterest in. The other reason is that, like a religious True Believer, you cannot be persuaded to argue in good faith.
> Anyway, if keystrokes count remains the same, why bother with modality?
One, I just proved that keystroke count doesn't remain the same, and two, the reason for modes is to avoid use of control keys, for the reason that those keys didn't exist on the keyboards for which vi and vim were designed.
The designers of vi and vim had no choices about modes, it resulted from a limitation of 1970-era computers and terminals, and such modes have been abandoned by all modern editors without exception, as a clear hindrance to efficient use of a computer.
Stop lying.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nice ad hominem. How is calling you young, saying you have your entire life in front of you, an ad hominem ? Except possibly to suggest that you have a quota of mistakes you need to go through before you become more efficient at avoiding them?
>saying you have your entire life in front of you That's not what you said... you said he was too young to know vi/vim better than you. If you haven't used it in 30 years how would you know vim any better than a younger person? Why would age have anything to do with recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of various text editors? My grandparents barely knew how to turn on a computer... they wouldn't try to teach me th…
> ... you said he was too young to know vi/vim better than you.
At this point you have two choices. You can locate where I said that and quote my words directly, or you cam post your apology for making a false claim in this public forum.
To cut to the chase, I never said what you claim, your claim is false.
Ah -- I just figured out why you can't quote my words directly, to discover that I never said what you claim. You're using vim to compose your reply, and vim is so damned inefficient that the task of accurate reporting is consequently entirely beyond your energy or patience.
> If you haven't used it in 30 years how would you know vim any better than a younger person?
False premise, false conclusion. Locate where I said I had never used vi/vim for 30 years.
> Why would age have anything to do with recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of various text editors?
I never made that claim, so I don't have to defend it. Since you have obviously lost track of the thread, the OP used words to the effect that I might be suffering from a neophyte syndrome (not his words). I replied by pointing out that I am hardly a beginner, that in fact I was probably using these editors before he was born. Perfectly apt reply, one having only to do with experience, not age.
> ... your arguments here could be better.
A non sequitur. Ellen Page could also be better looking, even though that's a bit hard to imagine:
http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/ellen_page-wide.jpg
Summary. You need to post real quotes of real words, things people really said. Obviously if you're handicapped by using vi/vim to compose your replies, such trivial actions as copy and paste are -- well, by no means trivial -- so the content of your posts becomes more understandable.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would actually love to hear some specific and insightful criticisms of Vim ... Sure, no problem: * It's still a command-line editor. Just like vi. * To perform multiple operations, like moving the cursor around, entering text, deleting text, searching the document, saving and loading files, requires you to switch modes. Just like vi. * It cannot take advantage of the modern computing environment -- mouse navigati…
> * No clipboard support -- all copying and pasting operations, apart from being another example of bizarre vi incantations requiring the recall of a raft of magic characters, is within vi/vim and disregards the system clipboard. I was under the impression, vim does have clipboard support. Putting "set clipboard=unnamed" in ~/.vimrc integrates it with system clipboard (at least on OSX).
> I was under the impression, vim does have clipboard support. Putting "set clipboard=unnamed" in ~/.vimrc integrates it with system clipboard
I was wrong about that. As it turns out, in some environments, by reconfiguration you can make vi/vim recognize the system clipboard, even though it's terribly unhappy about it, and even though the change isn't transferable to all working environments.
I stand corrected.
Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, the arrows work (should work, may be a problem on some terminals/terminal emulators, but that's common for console editors) It's not common in modern times for any of this to be either necessary or justifiable. But now that we're no longer discussing how inefficient vim is, but discussing tricks meant to minimize its acknowledged inefficiency, I think we're done. > > I wold pass the mouse cursor across the desi…
> It's not common in modern times for any of this Any of which? Please, be more precise. You mean that it's not common for certain keys to be mixed up in console applications? Please... > You can measure it by noticing that most modern computers since 1980 have Oh well, you have a curious definition of measurement then. > some spoilsport may mention that the entire exercise is unnecessary You mean editing text is unn…
> You still didn't provide any kind of evidence that editing with mouse is faster than using pure-keyboard interface.
How about the direction of computer history? Vi was superseded by Apple Writer (and other editors, some of them better) that supported the existence of control characters, those editors were superseded by editors that supported mice, and those editors have in turn been improved on to the present day. Do you really think this was all homage to empty fashion, and that modern editors require more work than vi/vim?
Apart from that, it's been proven over and over again that pointing devices improve the efficiency of text editing, compared to an editor that only has control characters to guide the process, and much less so for editors like vi/vim that don't have the advantage of control characters.
Reference: http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html
Quote:
* Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing.
* The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
End quote (BTW the above is a famous quote by a friend of mine from the early Apple days).
Remember that the above comparison, and all modern comparisons, only compare mouse-dominated use with keyboard-only use for keyboards having control characters -- none of them take on the added burden of vi/vim's modes, which result from the absence of control characters on early keyboards.
> I'm less amused by your mistaken beliefs ...
I just proved that my views aren't beliefs, they're backed up by research, and they are not mistaken. You are not arguing in good faith -- you have no evidence for your position, but you have strong feelings. Not a situation conducive to generating light, as opposed to heat.