OSDev.org

B.E wrote:Vi (made in 1976) still can do things that most (although I have not seen another one that can do everything Vi can do) editors can't do (or requires more time to accomplish the same goal). Most of Vi's key combinations are because of when it was made (back then keyboards didn't have CTRL, ALT, and Arrow Keys).

Are you quite certain in your facts? Because Vi is Emacs' younger brother, and Emacs uses such keys. In fact, the wikipedia page on emacs says that in 1972 Stallman added the CTRL-R keycombo to the old 'E' editor. Which suggests the CTRL key existed

JamesM wrote:

B.E wrote:Vi (made in 1976) still can do things that most (although I have not seen another one that can do everything Vi can do) editors can't do (or requires more time to accomplish the same goal). Most of Vi's key combinations are because of when it was made (back then keyboards didn't have CTRL, ALT, and Arrow Keys).

Are you quite certain in your facts? Because Vi is Emacs' younger brother, and Emacs uses such keys. In fact, the wikipedia page on emacs says that in 1972 Stallman added the CTRL-R keycombo to the old 'E' editor. Which suggests the CTRL key existed

You're right. The ADM3A, the terminal which vi was written on, did have CTRL, and arrow keys. (They were h, j, k, and l.)

A great feature of vi is that for most of the time your finger's remain in the centre of the keybord which definitely increases your typing speed ,unless u only use the thumb and index finger for typing you will find vi much faster and productive. bye for nuw

Several points, from my experience:

• Typing code means lots of AltGr-sequences, making finger placement not so important (as you keep moving over the whole keyboard anyways).
• Many coders I know taught themselves to type, not in a typist class but by trial & error. This usually results in a 6-to-8 fingers "coder's claw" style that doesn't much care for finger placement either.

The three "selling points" of vi:

• You don't have to switch windows between editor (code) and shell (make);
• it comes up really fast;
• while there are other solutions for the two points above, none of them is as ubiquitous (or easily / cheaply added) as vi.

That being said, when I have the choice, I prefer something more "graphical" as KWrite (before they removed the project management features...) or UltraEdit. Nevertheless, I use vi daily.

Solar wrote: a 6-to-8 fingers "coder's claw"

Coder's claw, eh? Thats a good one... I'll have to remember that.

The reason why I prefer nano (when I have to edit something on a remote host) over vi is that I don't like vi's default key combinations. I want shift+. to result in a colon instead of invoking an action or a menu.

How to design an editor for those with the coder's claw? An editor which is easy to learn, predictable and efficient to use.

When I'm in a GUI environment I usually use Kate (on Linux) and UltraEdit (on XP/Vista).

esa wrote:I want shift+. to result in a colon instead of invoking an action or a menu.

It does, when you are in insert mode...

How to design an editor for those with the coder's claw?

You don't. That typing style was aquired while typing in "standard" editors / environments, and thus works well in "standard" environments. It would be pretty stupid to "design" an editor for it, as it would be confusing and unpredictable for someone with ten-finger-typing, or a different "flavor" of coder's claw. (I use 8 fingers, my buddy uses 6, another guy I know uses 5...)

An editor which is easy to learn, predictable and efficient to use.

Cross-platform, free, accepted by your company's security department, ...

Solar wrote: It does, when you are in insert mode...

A better way to phrase... or actually a better way to say what I really wanted to say was that those modes get in my way. I guess I'm just not used to them at all. I rarely have to use systems that don't have anything else than vi installed and when possible I usually use some other editor (like nano) that I'm used to because I just need to get the job done fast.

Solar wrote: You don't.

So... because there is no single specification for the coder's claw the only way we can create an editor which would be compatible with the way coder's write would be to create an editor which allows free and full customization, right?

Solar wrote:

esa wrote:An editor which is easy to learn, predictable and efficient to use.

Cross-platform, free, accepted by your company's security department, ...

Life is hard. Tell me if you ever find such an editor...

esa wrote:

Solar wrote: It does, when you are in insert mode...

A better way to phrase... or actually a better way to say what I really wanted to say was that those modes get in my way. I guess I'm just not used to them at all. I rarely have to use systems that don't have anything else than vi installed and when possible I usually use some other editor (like nano) that I'm used to because I just need to get the job done fast.

Or the old motto: ":break_stuff ESC :break_more_stuff"

Solar wrote: You don't.

So... because there is no single specification for the coder's claw the only way we can create an editor which would be compatible with the way coder's write would be to create an editor which allows free and full customization, right?

Well like anything I think a better solution would be to do a survey of typing styles rather than base work on pure guesses...

Solar wrote:

esa wrote:An editor which is easy to learn, predictable and efficient to use.

Cross-platform, free, accepted by your company's security department, ...

Life is hard. Tell me if you ever find such an editor...

Vi? Emacs? Kate?

Actually my perfect editor ever ever ever would be Kate with emacs bindings.

Pure heaven!

JamesM wrote:

esa wrote:

Solar wrote: Cross-platform, free, accepted by your company's security department, ...

Life is hard. Tell me if you ever find such an editor...

Vi? Emacs? Kate?

Scratch Kate, it's not cross-platform (unless you really feel like installing KDE on Windows or a HP-UX...) or accepted by every other security department.

There's a reason why such dinosaurs as emacs and vi(m) are still around. They have severe shortcomings, which are a direct result of the limited demands they make on their environments - which in turn enables them to be ubiquituous, whereas Kate, UltraEdit and their ilk are not.

My perfect editor would be the handwriting recognition that I already use on my mobile phone, on a desktop scale. That is to say, a tablet PC. It's natural, it works for all people, it's faster than voice recognition, and you can draw cool squigly lines and stuff.

Now why didn't that take off?

pcmattman (if you read this): What do you think of your tablet PC?

Yayyak wrote:My perfect editor would be the handwriting recognition that I already use on my mobile phone, on a desktop scale. [...] Now why didn't that take off?

Personal example.

My handwriting sucks. It takes me much longer to write something than to type something, and it is much more uncomfortable (cramps, writer's wart, ...).

And I can't really imagine any handwriting recognition will do well trying to tell {, [ and ( apart in my handwriting...

pcmattman (if you read this): What do you think of your tablet PC?

I think you mean MessiahAndrw... I don't have a tablet PC that I know of.

Yeah, sorry, I get confused between you two. I think I was reading one of your posts while writing that one.

l used both of vi and emacs for a period. And now vi is my first choice.
vi do editing works incredibly fast.
emacs integrated many things I don't need. It's better to integrate everything into an editor(then it becomes an IDE) on a console-only box or an old-fashioned 15' monitor. With a larger screen and GUI, all l need is to start a new terminal in corner or in a new vdesktop. It's faster to switch back and forth between them than to remember those fascinating keybinds.
And l really dislike the brackets!