> * 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.
To me, it sounds like he's made the classic "vim newbie" mistake of thinking of insert mode as the default, and then switching to normal mode to do anything other than edit text. It's easy to see how that would cause a painful experience.
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?
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 that notepad is a better text editor than vim. I'm not discounting your experience (you definitely have more than most people here) but your arguments here could be better.
> ... 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:
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.
> 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.
You first. You said:
> How is calling you young, saying you have your entire life in front of you, an ad hominem
Your exact words:
> Based on simple probability, the chance is better than 50% that I was using vi before you were born.
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 switch from text entry to control mode. And the magic character was an ordinary character, sometimes used for text entry, sometimes interpreted as a command prefix.
Keyboards have changed, but vi hasn't. Computers have mice and touch-sensitive displays, but vi can't exploit them. Operating systems have clipboards, but vi can't take advantage of that convention. You know -- don't get me started.
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.
... Vim (and plugins) can respond to mouse actions (for example, to open a file tree in NERDTree or Tagbar), so your mouse stuff is pure misinformation. This includes console vim or gui vim.
As for integrating with the system clipboard, that clipboard lives somewhere (X11, OS-X, Windows System), it isn't magic, and vim can integrate with it in various ways dependent on the OS. On windows for example "set clipboard=unnamed" basically makes vim use the system clipboard, period.
> 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.
I'm not sure if you're just joking or you're just misinformed.
For text editing, mouse is more inefficient than keystrokes
> For text editing, mouse is more inefficient than keystrokes
Your evidence for that is provided by the fact that the world eagerly adopted the mouse and abandoned vi/vim and similar programs, based solely on the advantages of modern methods.
Your evidence for that is provided by the fact that I wrote an incremental improvement over vi, one that exploited the existence of control keys but didn't exploit a nonexistent mouse, and, even though it represented no great improvement, I retired on the proceeds at the age of 35. (My program was appropriately eclipsed by better, more advanced programs, that among other things did exploit the mouse.)
> I'm not sure if you're just joking or you're just misinformed.
Wake up and smell the Cappuccino. You are not living in reality.
There is indeed a massive advantage of a mouse over a keyboard-based interface - it's far, far more discoverable for novice or occasional users. In fact, I'd venture to say the mouse (and the corresponding advent of discoverable graphical interfaces) was the primary driver of making computers accessible to non-techies and hence largely responsible for the computing revolution.
But, a keyboard-based interface is still more efficient for someone who can put in the time to learning how to use it efficiently (and customizing it to their specific work), and uses it regularly enough to maintain that knowledge. For a lot of people who write code for a living, a text editor definitely falls in that area.
> But, a keyboard-based interface is still more efficient ...
This has been proven false any number of times. It's false when comparing mouse use against a modern keyboard with control and function keys, and it is certainly false for the limited keyboards for which vi/vim was designed, those keyboards that result in vi/vim not being able to exploit control characters.
> those keyboards that result in vi/vim not being able to exploit control characters.
Modern vim uses control characters just fine. Have you used it any time in the last decade?
Because you seem to dance around that question a lot, saying "Well when did I say I haven't used vim recently" whenever someone brings it up, and then saying something else completely wrong that indicates you have no idea how a modern version of vim is actually used.
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?
Vim/GVim actually do support the mouse since a while. You can select, copy/paste, resize your split windows, etc, using the mouse. GVim even has typical menus, not so different than wordpad. However, I agree with you that for other features, like using different fonts at once, Vim is limited or feels constrained.
> 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 all day.
In point of fact, if I am entering text, I cannot move the cursor, search for text, save a file, load a file, or a dozen other things, without first switching modes.
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.
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.
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.