Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors • Hacker News Board

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#71

Post by jeremysmyth » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:51 AM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #60

jamesbooker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah - Paul Lutus, the fantastically boring, ridiculously bad wig-wearing dinosaur manages to wheel himself into another discussion by popular demand from no-one at all to remind the participants how he wrote Apple Writer and worked on the Space Shuttle and is a multimillionare. How many people use Apple Writer these days Paul? Is it more than Vim? A number closer to zero? The bitterness seething out of your every pore…

Imagine bolstering your fantasies with evidence. Apple Writer was retired at just the right moment -- when something better came along. That's how technology works, and no one was more pleased than I was. > The bitterness seething out of your every pore that your software has been consigned to the graveyard ... Dream on, moron. Apple Writer belongs in a museum along with vi. What's astonishing is that people are stil…

I feel the need to point out that everyone else is talking about vim, but you're talking about vi. Could that explain some of the differences in how you remember things based on how they are? (redux)

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#72

Post by reginaldjcooper » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:52 AM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #63

pestaa wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me more about this modern editor where half the keystrokes get the same job done. Or tell me about any editor where the same amount of keystrokes get the same job done.

I can't drag you kicking and screaming into the early twenty-first century. You have to make that trip on your own.

I give replies like that to my brothers when I'm gaslighting them and they are trying find proof I'm lying.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#73

Post by klibertp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:53 AM UTC

jamesbooker wrote: post #52

lutusp wrote: post #2

> Vim is the worst editor ... except all the other editors Yes to the first five words, no to the rest. How many Vim users realize that some of its more infuriating behaviors can be traced back to its predecessor vi, which had to be able operate with a "paper terminal", essentially a roll of paper as a display, without wasting too much paper during editing? And how do I know this? During my time at NASA designing par…

Ah - Paul Lutus, the fantastically boring, ridiculously bad wig-wearing dinosaur manages to wheel himself into another discussion by popular demand from no-one at all to remind the participants how he wrote Apple Writer and worked on the Space Shuttle and is a multimillionare. How many people use Apple Writer these days Paul? Is it more than Vim? A number closer to zero? The bitterness seething out of your every pore…

Heh, that was completely unneeded, really.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#74

Post by lutusp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:53 AM UTC

pestaa wrote: post #58

lutusp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, it sounds like he's made the classic "vim newbie" ... Based on simple probability, the chance is better than 50% that I was using vi before you were born.

Nice ad hominem. Using vi before any of us was born does not mean you avoided the classic "vim newbie" mistake.

> 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?

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#75

Post by gregjor » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:55 AM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #2

> Vim is the worst editor ... except all the other editors Yes to the first five words, no to the rest. How many Vim users realize that some of its more infuriating behaviors can be traced back to its predecessor vi, which had to be able operate with a "paper terminal", essentially a roll of paper as a display, without wasting too much paper during editing? And how do I know this? During my time at NASA designing par…

vi has always been a full-screen visual editor, as in display screen visual, not teletype visual. The paper-oriented predecessors to vim/vi were ed and ex. Like you I used teletype-oriented editors until vi came along, about the same time I got my own ADM-3A, the same dumb terminal Bill Joy used to develop vi on.

I think most of us who learned vi back when it was simple have the keystrokes burned into our brains, and we know that vi is quite efficient once learned. I still use vim but not any plugins or extensions and I don't write scripts for it, because I just forget about them anyway and they aren't going to be installed on the GUI-less servers I ssh into. I use a more modern editor (TextMate) most of the time.

I don't think vi or vim are terrible, but they can feel clunky on modern GUI-based operating systems. A serious driver should know how to shift a manual transmission. A serious programmer or sys admin should know how to manipulate files and text with standard UNIX tools and editors. vi may not be the best text editor depending on how you measure "best," but it is ubiquitous and does the job it was intended for.

My advice for vim users is to start with the vanilla install, no plugins. Learn to configure things you really need in the .vimrc file. If you find yourself creating a complex and over-personalized editing environment to save the occasional keystroke or make vim work like an IDE, you are shooting yourself in the foot in the long run. You may as well just use Eclipse.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#76

Post by ehsanu1 » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:58 AM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #27

danielbarla wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually love to hear some specific and insightful criticisms of Vim, but referring to its history is not a particularly compelling one (for me, at least). In today's terms, the above "without wasting too much paper during editing" argument translates into "with as few keystrokes as possible". In some situations, I definitely find my ability to type (or in general, to edit text) to be the bottleneck in gettin…

> 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…

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 operations ... requires you to switch modes

Vim is modal, yes, but what is the specific disadvantage of that? That it has a learning curve? Mode switches are generally single key presses, so it's not exactly onerous once you know what keys to press. Equivalents in "modern" text editors require use of the mouse, which while being much easier to figure out, is also much less efficient. Using the mouse, though just taking a bit longer each time, is enough for my brain do a switch and focus on that action instead of the code - unlike the vim mode switches I do all the time without thinking.

No, actually, in the vi days, to save paper one had to enter more keystrokes, not fewer

That sounds plausible, but not all that relevant to how one uses vim now.

former users of vi were astonished by how few keystrokes were required to accomplish things

Also irrelevant. Vim's text objects, which basically offers you a vocabulary for text manipulation, has no match and will generally allow vim to win in practically any keystroke comparison. It's not clear how well you know how to use vim, if it all, though you've clearly used and hated vi in a past life :).

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#77

Post by lutusp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 9:59 AM UTC

jbri wrote: post #66

lutusp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is factually incorrect ... If you, like most people, spend most of your time entering text, then it is factually correct that you must exit the text-entry mode to do anything else. And do you know why this arrangement exists? Because there were teletype terminals and early glass terminals that didn't have control keys. No control keys, no way to exploit their existence. SO there had to be a magic character to…

I'll point out that any modern version of vim uses mice just fine. It also uses the system clipboard just fine. The reason most vim users stick with the keyboard is because using a short key combination to select and manipulate text is measurably faster than moving your hand off the keyboard, manipulating a mouse or touchscreen, and then moving it back to continue typing.

> I'll point out that any modern version of vim uses mice just fine. It also uses the system clipboard just fine.

What you see as vim appearing to exploit a mouse and system clipboard is actually Bash and (sometimes) a command-line app (example Konsole) doing so, or equivalent utilities outside vim in a non-GUI level. Those features work with any editor in exactly the same way.

As to using the system clipboard just fine, you can copy text from vim or any other displayed source of text, but you cannot paste it, because it's not vim that's acting, or is in any way aware that text has been copied.

> ... because using a short key combination to select and manipulate text is measurably faster than moving your hand off the keyboard, manipulating a mouse or touchscreen, and then moving it back to continue typing.

Right -- the mouse was foisted on a gullible public willing to suffer a reduction in efficiency in order to have an electronic pet, all against their better interests. And the industry's usually diligent efficiency experts were all bribed to overlook the reduction in efficiency you've just brought to our attention.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#78

Post by lutusp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 10:05 AM UTC

jeremysmyth wrote: post #68

lutusp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is factually incorrect ... If you, like most people, spend most of your time entering text, then it is factually correct that you must exit the text-entry mode to do anything else. And do you know why this arrangement exists? Because there were teletype terminals and early glass terminals that didn't have control keys. No control keys, no way to exploit their existence. SO there had to be a magic character to…

I feel the need to point out that everyone else is talking about vim, but you're talking about vi. Could that explain some of the differences in how you remember things based on how they are?

The answer is simple: vim = vi with decorations. If vim had done away with modes that date back forty years, I would acknowledge that.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#79

Post by lake99 » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 10:10 AM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #27

danielbarla wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually love to hear some specific and insightful criticisms of Vim, but referring to its history is not a particularly compelling one (for me, at least). In today's terms, the above "without wasting too much paper during editing" argument translates into "with as few keystrokes as possible". In some situations, I definitely find my ability to type (or in general, to edit text) to be the bottleneck in gettin…

> 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…

I hate vim too, but some of your points are simply not true:

> * 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.

Open a file. Insert some text. Use arrow keys to scroll. Hit Alt-/ to search forward. Hit Alt-Shift-/ to search backwards. Sure, some commands need you to switch modes, but not all.

> * It cannot take advantage of the modern computing environment -- mouse navigation, different fonts, text styling, page layout, or anything else. Just like vi.

One can do text styling (but only with colours, I think) with vim. With gvim, one can use a mouse, and change fonts.

Re: Vim is the worst editor, except all the other editors

#80

Post by klibertp » Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 10:12 AM UTC

aidos wrote: post #64

lutusp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The modes that you complain about (and let's be honest - there are really just 2 that you use) ... No, to switch from entering text, to deleting text, to searching for text, to copying and pasting text, to saving a file, to loading a file, all require switching modes. Let's be honest. > By making that compromise you make the system faster and more powerful ... Having to enter additional keystrokes, a throwback to a…

You'll need to provide explicit examples of where any of those operations requires more keystrokes in vim than any other editor - I can't think of any. You're calling vim commands "modes" to deliberately make it sound more complex than it is. I want to change to next 3 words. I type 'c3w' - you're saying that's modal - which it sort of vaugly is. I could have done 'v3w' to highlight the next 3 words (something you wo…

Actually, having numerical prefixes to commands is not a feature constrained to modal editors. In something like Notepad, to replace three next words, you need to press shift+ctrl and hit right arrow three times, then just start typing. The only inefficient thing here is a repetition of left arrow, and it's solved in Emacs, where to do the same, you'd press Ctrl+3 Ctrl+ and then started typing (if you have delete-selection-mode enabled). So it's very similar to c3w in terms of complexity, really. On the other hand - I don't quite understand what lutusp means by "modes" - by what he writes here, I'd say that Emacs enters "command mode" after pressing (for example) C-u in exactly the same way Vim does after . Actually any editor with commands bound to key sequences can be said to be modal in the light of what he writes. And Shift+Right and then writing something is a command bound to a sequence of keystrokes, which means I'm using a modal editor right now, writing in a textarea in Chrome. I don't think that's what lutusp wanted to say, though.