10 ms·

i have tried both and hjkl is just faster. it's "madness" the same way having 88 white unmarked keys on a piano is "madness" to someone who doesn't play.

MartinCron 14y ago
88 white unmarked keys on a piano would be madness. You forgot the black keys.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  The piano/keyboard isn't my main instrument, but I'm not sure that the color of the keys would make a huge difference. Practiced/professional violinists, for example, don't use sight to figure out how to place their fingers, and pianists don't even have to worry about tuning the way violinists do.
  - lnanek2 14y ago
    The two people above you are pretty much saying the same thing. Piano keys being unmarked and making sense to pianists as the best way was being used as proof that using keys not marked with arrows could be the best way for editors. I'll throw in with agreeing as well, my piano teacher hated when music had finger numbers on it and things like that, using them just slowed you down and messed you up, especially when the hands changed positions. Labeled piano keys would be bad because it would prevent people from learning the right way to play.
  - charonn0 14y ago
    In many (most?) early pianos the colors were reversed.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  You would only really need a reference point every octave. I've always felt that having "sharp notes" on, basically, their own row of the piano was silly, and I've speculated on how one could design a sane keyboard that puts all (musical) keys on an equal basis... In short, the black (physical) keys are part of the madness. ;)
  - mkl 14y ago
    You may be interested in the Janko keyboard layout then: http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/04/music-thing-the-chromatone-312/ http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/04/music-thing-the-chromaton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janko_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janko_keyboard I really want one.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      So do I. That looks insane,
    - andrewflnr 14y ago
      Not quite what I had in mind, but definitely interesting.
robomartin 14y ago
Sometimes stirring-up shit can be a win-win situation. I could agree with you and get the anti-vim guys all worked up. I could even back it up with random links and examples from all over the web. I could also disagree with you and get pro-vim guys all riled-up. Again, suitable links, stats and a photo of some guy with carpal-tunnel would do the trick. That's great stuff! To quote one of the most memorable lines in motion picture lore: "Interesting game. The only way to win is not to play." I use vim. And I've used everything else. I don't care. All of it pales in magnitude to the efficiency losses elsewhere in the process of developing a software product. My guess is that on a daily basis I waste more time going for a cup of coffee, shooting the shit, reading/posting on HN, getting pulled in all manner of directions on the internet than any text editor could save me short of a brain-to-code interface. And, of course, there's the actual work of figuring out how to code something. I've spent days diagraming state machines with, yes, hold-on, paper and pencil. Once there, an hour or two and the bug-free code is written and working. Yes, even if you use Notepad. You want to be more efficient? Get really good at going from problem to finished, shippable, documented, flexible, reusable and bug-free code. What you use to enter said code probably does not matter. I'm going back to polishing my keyboard. Maybe you guys ought to do the same.
- obscaenvs 14y ago
  robomartin: A voice of reason in a sea of inane babble.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    Thanks for the vote of confidence. Now I have the challenge of actually trying to be that person.
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  I slightly disagree. Obviously you're entirely correct about the amount of time spent editing text versus figuring out how to code stuff. The "time efficiency" argument for vim is pretty rubbish. For me (and I appreciate the irony) I like vim because it has a lower cognitive load. I can say things like "Change the contents of the quotes to say Goodbye Planet", rather than having to actually execute the instructions -- move left a word, move left a word, start highlight, move right a word, move right a word, move right a word, stop and check to see my cursor is in the right place, press delete, type phrase "Goodbye Planet" The benefits measured in time are no doubt negligible (or even negative -- as you say, editing time pales in comparison to other work), but the benefits to my concentration are much higher. Tedious, repetitive work makes me frustrated, distracted, or both. If I can keep myself in a good mental space and not be constantly interrupted by having to babysit my source editor, I can be more productive. PS: And then I spend the time on HN :/
stephengillie 14y ago
Sanity is having arrow buttons on your mouse. (also Enter, ESC, space, delete, backspace, etc etc)
- mkl 14y ago
  You jest, I expect, but I've actually tried it, more or less, and it works quite well. I don't (can't) use a physical keyboard, and while I use a touch screen a lot now I used to do absolutely everything with a mouse, or, often, two mice so they don't need to be gripped so tightly, one for moving and the other (with a taped over sensor) for clicking. Then I replaced the clicking mouse with a USB numeric keypad with the keys remapped to mouse buttons, arrows, and "Enter, ESC, space, delete, backspace, etc etc". It was worse for my joints, but (obviously) a bit more efficient.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    You expect I jest, but I actually spent $120 on a Razer Naga just so I could use the reprogrammable thumb buttons.
kragen 14y ago
Chad, while it's true that having your direction keys where you can easily reach them is faster than having them somewhere else, using the mouse is faster than moving one cell at a time with direction keys, and Jef Raskin's "LEAP" research in the 1980s showed that incremental search is faster than using the mouse. Try it in vim: :set incsearch :set hlsearch (ObFlameRetardant: I prefer Emacs myself for programming, but vim is a perfectly excellent editor.)
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  I do love search for file navigation (incremental is even better, but not strictly necessary). Do you have a link to the study about mouse vs cell-based key movement? I have a couple of questions: - While I fully believe that navigating by mouse is faster, on a desktop the overhead of switching between typing and mousing is quite high. On my laptop I often use the trackpoint over relevant keyboard shortcuts because it's already right under my fingers, but on my desktop I much prefer using the shortcuts due to the overhead of switching. - For a movement that's three cells or fewer, I find it hard to imagine that mouse would be faster (unless perhaps it's set to follow the cursor?). I assume the study averages over a variety of distances across the entire screen. I hope that most vim users aren't using hjkl for adjustments of more than three or so cells. A combination of {}wb and especially ?/ will handle the bulk of jumps quickly. hjkl are then useful keys for adjusting just a couple of characters to refine your jump -- and now they're already right under your fingers.
  - kragen 14y ago
    I don't have a link. I remember that one such set of experiments was done by a famous usability expert at Sun who's not Nielsen, but I can't remember who he was. There's a slowdown associated with considering too many different options, too, btw. It's just more invisible.

MartinCron 14y ago

88 white unmarked keys on a piano would be madness. You forgot the black keys.

chimeracoder 14y ago
The piano/keyboard isn't my main instrument, but I'm not sure that the color of the keys would make a huge difference. Practiced/professional violinists, for example, don't use sight to figure out how to place their fingers, and pianists don't even have to worry about tuning the way violinists do.
- lnanek2 14y ago
  The two people above you are pretty much saying the same thing. Piano keys being unmarked and making sense to pianists as the best way was being used as proof that using keys not marked with arrows could be the best way for editors. I'll throw in with agreeing as well, my piano teacher hated when music had finger numbers on it and things like that, using them just slowed you down and messed you up, especially when the hands changed positions. Labeled piano keys would be bad because it would prevent people from learning the right way to play.
- charonn0 14y ago
  In many (most?) early pianos the colors were reversed.
andrewflnr 14y ago
You would only really need a reference point every octave. I've always felt that having "sharp notes" on, basically, their own row of the piano was silly, and I've speculated on how one could design a sane keyboard that puts all (musical) keys on an equal basis... In short, the black (physical) keys are part of the madness. ;)
- mkl 14y ago
  You may be interested in the Janko keyboard layout then: http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/04/music-thing-the-chromatone-312/ http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/04/music-thing-the-chromaton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janko_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janko_keyboard I really want one.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    So do I. That looks insane,
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    Not quite what I had in mind, but definitely interesting.

robomartin 14y ago

Sometimes stirring-up shit can be a win-win situation. I could agree with you and get the anti-vim guys all worked up. I could even back it up with random links and examples from all over the web. I could also disagree with you and get pro-vim guys all riled-up. Again, suitable links, stats and a photo of some guy with carpal-tunnel would do the trick. That's great stuff! To quote one of the most memorable lines in motion picture lore: "Interesting game. The only way to win is not to play." I use vim. And I've used everything else. I don't care. All of it pales in magnitude to the efficiency losses elsewhere in the process of developing a software product. My guess is that on a daily basis I waste more time going for a cup of coffee, shooting the shit, reading/posting on HN, getting pulled in all manner of directions on the internet than any text editor could save me short of a brain-to-code interface. And, of course, there's the actual work of figuring out how to code something. I've spent days diagraming state machines with, yes, hold-on, paper and pencil. Once there, an hour or two and the bug-free code is written and working. Yes, even if you use Notepad. You want to be more efficient? Get really good at going from problem to finished, shippable, documented, flexible, reusable and bug-free code. What you use to enter said code probably does not matter. I'm going back to polishing my keyboard. Maybe you guys ought to do the same.

obscaenvs 14y ago
robomartin: A voice of reason in a sea of inane babble.
- robomartin 14y ago
  Thanks for the vote of confidence. Now I have the challenge of actually trying to be that person.
qu4z-2 14y ago
I slightly disagree. Obviously you're entirely correct about the amount of time spent editing text versus figuring out how to code stuff. The "time efficiency" argument for vim is pretty rubbish. For me (and I appreciate the irony) I like vim because it has a lower cognitive load. I can say things like "Change the contents of the quotes to say Goodbye Planet", rather than having to actually execute the instructions -- move left a word, move left a word, start highlight, move right a word, move right a word, move right a word, stop and check to see my cursor is in the right place, press delete, type phrase "Goodbye Planet" The benefits measured in time are no doubt negligible (or even negative -- as you say, editing time pales in comparison to other work), but the benefits to my concentration are much higher. Tedious, repetitive work makes me frustrated, distracted, or both. If I can keep myself in a good mental space and not be constantly interrupted by having to babysit my source editor, I can be more productive. PS: And then I spend the time on HN :/

stephengillie 14y ago

Sanity is having arrow buttons on your mouse. (also Enter, ESC, space, delete, backspace, etc etc)

mkl 14y ago
You jest, I expect, but I've actually tried it, more or less, and it works quite well. I don't (can't) use a physical keyboard, and while I use a touch screen a lot now I used to do absolutely everything with a mouse, or, often, two mice so they don't need to be gripped so tightly, one for moving and the other (with a taped over sensor) for clicking. Then I replaced the clicking mouse with a USB numeric keypad with the keys remapped to mouse buttons, arrows, and "Enter, ESC, space, delete, backspace, etc etc". It was worse for my joints, but (obviously) a bit more efficient.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  You expect I jest, but I actually spent $120 on a Razer Naga just so I could use the reprogrammable thumb buttons.

kragen 14y ago

Chad, while it's true that having your direction keys where you can easily reach them is faster than having them somewhere else, using the mouse is faster than moving one cell at a time with direction keys, and Jef Raskin's "LEAP" research in the 1980s showed that incremental search is faster than using the mouse. Try it in vim: :set incsearch :set hlsearch (ObFlameRetardant: I prefer Emacs myself for programming, but vim is a perfectly excellent editor.)

qu4z-2 14y ago
I do love search for file navigation (incremental is even better, but not strictly necessary). Do you have a link to the study about mouse vs cell-based key movement? I have a couple of questions: - While I fully believe that navigating by mouse is faster, on a desktop the overhead of switching between typing and mousing is quite high. On my laptop I often use the trackpoint over relevant keyboard shortcuts because it's already right under my fingers, but on my desktop I much prefer using the shortcuts due to the overhead of switching. - For a movement that's three cells or fewer, I find it hard to imagine that mouse would be faster (unless perhaps it's set to follow the cursor?). I assume the study averages over a variety of distances across the entire screen. I hope that most vim users aren't using hjkl for adjustments of more than three or so cells. A combination of {}wb and especially ?/ will handle the bulk of jumps quickly. hjkl are then useful keys for adjusting just a couple of characters to refine your jump -- and now they're already right under your fingers.
- kragen 14y ago
  I don't have a link. I remember that one such set of experiments was done by a famous usability expert at Sun who's not Nielsen, but I can't remember who he was. There's a slowdown associated with considering too many different options, too, btw. It's just more invisible.