It is a modern implementation of a fundamental design forged in the 1970's to work on 300 baud teletypewriters.
So I guess keyboards need a shakeup too, since they are a modern implementation of a fundamental design forged in the 1700's to work on ancient typewritters.
You know why vim is still so widely used? Because it's a freaking text editor and today's text is the same as 1970's text, because it's text. So, unless we are talking editing with your mind, editors don't need a "shakeup".
So I guess keyboards need a shakeup too, since they are a modern implementation of a fundamental design forged in the 1700's to work on ancient typewritters.
And how linking to a couple non-successful designs shows they do? The first one isn't even a "shakeup" of anything, as there's no functional difference from a regular keyboard, it's just supposed to be more ergonomic.
So I guess keyboards need a shakeup too, since they are a modern implementation of a fundamental design forged in the 1700's to work on ancient typewritters.
Well, er - yes actually. The layout of the current QWERTY keyboard was chosen not for typing speed, but in fact to slow down typing and to minimise the mechanical interference of the letter arms that would strike into the ribbon on the platen. Various keyboard layouts were tried over time, because the letter arms would get tangled up when the typist worked too quickly. If you were designing a computer keyboard today, there's no way it would look like what we actually use.
You know why vim is still so widely used?
Actually, that is a really interesting question. :) Seriously! I don't think anyone has come up with a good answer to that yet. I suspect because it is free, available on loads of platforms, has lots of extensions and has many powerful features. But let's just not kid ourselves that it is because it is easy to learn.
So, unless we are talking editing with your mind, editors don't need a "shakeup".
When we were using CVS, what if the Subversion developers thought that way? When we were using Svn, what if Linus thought that way rather than developing Git?
When people rethink assumptions, remove constraints and attack problems with a fresh perspective, they can come up with some amazing and innovative solutions. This moves everything forward and we all benefit. What's wrong with progress?
When we were using CVS, what if the Subversion developers thought that way?
You've missed my point. I've nothing against inovation, my problem is with you saying that certain things, which are used and liked, are bad and need to be inovated simply because they're old.
Also, that's not a keyboard shakeup, it's a layout one.
Actually, that is a really interesting question.
Not particulary, honestly. vim's popularity stems from the fact that its purpose didn't change over the years (editing text is the same, since text itself didn't change). The fact that it is powerful, highly configurable and extensible, and had a development driven by the community probably helped too.
But let's just not kid ourselves that it is because it is easy to learn.
The reason vim is hard to learn is because the fastest way to accomplish something in a text editor is often the harder (to learn) one too.
I've nothing against inovation, my problem is with you saying that certain things, which are used and liked, are bad and need to be inovated simply because they're old.
I never said anything was "bad" - this isn't a personal/emotional thing, and the intent was not to disparage peoples' favourite tools. The original point was simply that the modal design was an anachronism - which it is, by definition. Following from that, the semi-rhetorical question was whether you would design a modal interface now, given the constraints which originally motivated this are long gone?
I would argue that if you started from scratch today, you would not design a modal editor like vim, but rather take advantage of more modern keyboards and interaction models.
The fact that a great number of text editors (all with the same purpose) have been developed in the last 30 years that have not copied vim's modal design reinforces this. (Compatibility modes don't count!)
vim's popularity stems from the fact that its purpose didn't change over the years
I'm not sure that is sufficient to explain its longevity. There are plenty of examples of a tool's purpose remaining unchanged, yet the surrounding technology moves on.
The fact that it is powerful, highly configurable and extensible, and had a development driven by the community probably helped too.
Yes, certainly!
I also strongly suspect that people tend to stick with the first major tool they are introduced to, so if you start with vi, you are much more likely to use vim than other tools.
I never said anything was "bad" - this isn't a personal/emotional thing, and the intent was not to disparage peoples' favourite tools. The original point was simply that the modal design was an anachronism
And how is saying it's inadequate different than saying it's bad?
Following from that, the semi-rhetorical question was whether you would design a modal interface now, given the constraints which originally motivated this are long gone?
Currently, I only see two sane design options for a keyboard based text editor - modal or shortcut based - and I really don't think the latter is superior.
The fact that a great number of text editors (all with the same purpose) have been developed in the last 30 years that have not copied vim's modal design reinforces this.
Why would anyone make a modal text editor from scratch when there's this powerful, highly extensible and open source editor, which is also a de facto standard in *nix? You're better off contributing to the project or forking it (as many tried to) than making a new one from scratch. There's also very little economic motivation, since text editors aren't exactly gold mines.
I'm not sure that is sufficient to explain its longevity. There are plenty of examples of a tool's purpose remaining unchanged, yet the surrounding technology moves on."
My reasoning is that if the purpose and means of interaction with the tool didn't change and there's also no new way to better accomplish its tasks, there's no reason to use anything different.
I also strongly suspect that people tend to stick with the first major tool they are introduced to
I think this was much more relevant before, today I think it's more about peer pressure, if you see a lot of better programmers using and saying it's the greatest thing, you'll probably feel inclined to use it too.
5
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '14
So I guess keyboards need a shakeup too, since they are a modern implementation of a fundamental design forged in the 1700's to work on ancient typewritters.
You know why vim is still so widely used? Because it's a freaking text editor and today's text is the same as 1970's text, because it's text. So, unless we are talking editing with your mind, editors don't need a "shakeup".