Hacker News Reader

Comment by visviva | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for posting this and giving me a reason to reread my all time favorite greentext: https://i.imgur.com/WLzeQMj.png

View on HN

I know the image post in your comment exaggerates the Emacs input sequence for humorous effect but I got curious and decided to count the actual keystrokes for a real world common use case.

Say, we want to replace one string with another, e.g., "foo" with "bar" as it appears in your image post. So assuming that we need simple string replacement, not regex-based replacement, and also assuming that we have vanilla Vim, vanilla Emacs, no customization, and US layout keyboard, Emacs seems to be at par with Vim.

On Vim: <Shift>+; (:) <Shift>+5 (%) s/foo/bar/g <Enter> (16 key strokes)

On Emacs: <Alt>+<Shift>+, (M-<) Alt+Shift+5 (M-%) foo <Enter> bar <Enter> <Shift>+1 (!) (16 key strokes)

Now I know some of you might observe that I have not counted the initial <Esc> to escape to normal mode and the final i to enter insert mode again in Vim. That is correct, however, I find that experienced Vim users keep themselves in the normal mode most of the time. The normal mode is really the normal mode and the insert mode is a special mode that they get into for short periods of time to insert text. Also, they rarely use i to enter insert mode. Instead, they usually o, O, a, A, I, c<motion>, c<text-object>, etc. to enter insert mode. Then they return to normal mode again as soon as they are done inserting text, so I don't think it is fair to count the overhead of <Esc> and i while counting Vim key strokes.

Consider remapping ';' to ':' if you use vim a lot. Something like:

  " Use ; rather than : for commands
  nore ; :
  nore , ;

See, I never understood these tips. If I use Vim a lot I will build muscle memory. If I build the muscle memory with these adjustments I’ll just keep tripping over myself whenever I edit a file on a station without those adjustments. And simply foregoing the shift key isn’t even that much of a time or effort save.

This. I really like the pedal idea but I won't ever get it cause I don't want to have to move around with it.

I personally spend a lot more time at my own machine than at anybody else's, so the rare muscle memory fault while deep in SSH bothers me a lot less than uncomfortable defaults.

Totally agree with this.

For me, editing is like using a musical instrument; you want to get to the point where you're not using much conscious thought to do things quickly. How you do that doesn't really mater to much.

Many years ago (10 maybe?) I switched to the Colemak layout to help with an RSI. That messes up the vi home row navigation keys.

For a while I tried remapping jkl but since that's not very portable to other vi-like software on my own machine.

I gave up and just used muscle memory for new locations of those keys. That works surprisingly well for me.

I like Vim but I'm pretty sure that a competent emacs user would have very similar relationship with its keyboard interface.

Or with a regular text editor:

Shift+ctrl+<- bar

Way easier than either vim or emacs

Regular search?

I do '/ bar' on my emacs setup (Doom)

Adding further to my previous comment: What if we really need to do regex, say replace "f.." with "bar"? The input sequences then look like this:

On Vim: <Shift>+; (:) <Shift>+5 (%) s/f../bar/g <Enter> (16 key strokes)

On Emacs: <Alt>+<Shift>+, (M-<) Ctrl+Alt+Shift+5 (C-M-%) f.. <Enter> bar <Enter> <Shift>+1 (!) (17 key strokes)

Although, the number of key strokes are close to each other for both Vim and Emacs, I am pretty sure most beginners would feel there is a slightly increased cognitive overhead involved in Emacs when compared to Vim. The Vim input sequence is just : to invoke the command line mode, followed by an ed-style substitute command. However, the Emacs input sequence is M-< (beginning-of-buffer), C-M-% (query-replace-regexp), pattern, replacement-string and ! (to prevent further prompts). For an experienced Emacs user, all of this becomes muscle memory and becomes as efficient, if not more, as the Vim equivalent pretty soon.

Also, there is evil-mode in Evil for those who really want the Vim-editing experience along with the power of extensibility that Emacs offers.

When you spend hours in your editor, day after day, you aren’t a beginner for long

That’s unfortunately not my experience from observing other engineers. Many get stuck at a “good enough” level with their tools and never seem to learn the shortcuts which would allow them to code and edit faster.

Yes, that's exactly my experience with Emacs - I read their tutorial to do basic tasks (open files, open windows, switch windows, basic replace). Also, I never learned to use their "smart" (?) terminal, python console...

Otoh, then I tried Pycharm community, and eventually redeemed my github student pack for free pro version, and now I can't imagine living without it. Also there's a great plugin that annoys you with small non-modal popup in LB corner whenever you use mouse and reminds you of the correct hotkey

> Alt+Shift+5 (M-%)

You meant “Control+Alt+Shift+5 (C-M-%)”.

Oops! Copy-paste error. Fixed it now. Thanks for telling.

That would explain the off by two counting error.

> Ctrl+Alt+Shift+5

My fingers just broke reading that. Having said that I don't have a right alt key, as it's altgr . I suppose it's advisable to have two alt keys to use emacs.

I think people mash all 3 control keys with the left hand and reach across for the 5, or stretch their fingers very awkwardly and do all four. We’re into Rachmaninov territory at that point.

One can also invoke the query-regex-replacep functionality by its name instead of the key sequence C-M-%. For example: M-x q-r-r Tab Enter. The Tab key autocompletes the partially entered name q-r-r to query-regex-replace. This is going to be a lot more convenient for those who want to avoid the four finger chord.

> On Emacs: <Alt>+<Shift>+, (M-<) Ctrl+Alt+Shift+5 (C-M-%) f.. <Enter> bar <Enter> <Shift>+1 (!) (17 key strokes)

I get 19 here, and a lot more keys off the home row. Four keys at once is quite a bit slower for many people than two or even three.

> I get 19 here,

Here is the key stroke count I get expressed in a step-by-step manner:

   ;; Type M-< (Alt+<) to invoke beginning-of-buffer:
   1. Alt
   2. Shift
   3. ,

   ;; Type C-M-% (Ctrl+Alt+%) to invoke query-replace-regexp:
   4. Ctrl
   5. Alt
   6. Shift
   7. 5

   ;; Enter the regexp pattern "f.." at the prompt:
   8. f
   9. .
  10. .
  11. Enter

  ;; Enter the to-string "bar" at the prompt:
  12. b
  13. a
  14. r
  15. Enter

  ;; Type ! to replace all matches in the buffer:
  16. Shift
  17. 1

> and a lot more keys off the home row. Four keys at once is quite a bit slower for many people than two or even three.

Yes, indeed. The Emacs default key bindings are not the most ergonomic ones. To be fair though, the more common operation is M-% (Alt+%) which is a three finger chord.

Also, if one dislikes a four finger chord, there are other alternatives. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26435874 . Or one can customize Emacs and map regex-based replacement to a more convenient key sequence.:

  (defun query-replace-regexp-from-top ()
    (interactive)
    (goto-char (point-min))
    (call-interactively 'query-replace-regexp))

  (global-set-key (kbd "C-c C-r") 'query-replace-regexp-from-top)

With that, the key sequence is now C-c C-r f.. <enter> bar <enter> ! which is 13 key strokes. I know I am violating my own assumption of "no customization" in this thread so far. If we allow customization, both Vim and Emacs can do very amazing things.

Having said that, I just use C-M-% when I do need regex-based search and replace. Otherwise, for most situations M-% suffices.

By the way, I am not claiming in my comments that the default Emacs key-bindings are superior to Vim. If we go back to where this thread started (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26431864), I was only trying to show that a simple string replacement in Emacs is not as ridiculously complicated as the humorous image post in that comment made it out to be.

In my experience, the vanilla Vim key strokes are more convenient in some areas (e.g., o, O, gg, G, etc.) and the vanilla Emacs ones at other areas (e.g., C-x C-o for delete-blank-lines, M-\ for delete-horizontal space, M-q for fill-paragraph that I like quite more than Vim's gqq or gqap). If we talk about key sequences only, I don't think there is a clear winner. But if we start talking about functionality, extensibility, and customizability, that would be a whole different discussion where Emacs has a lot to offer.

There's is also replace-regexp which doesn't ask for confirmation but doesn't have a default keybinding.

> On Vim: <Shift>+; (:)

    nnoremap ; :

I've never missed the default behaviour of ";" (to repeat the last "t"-like command), and the above has helped me tremendously

I, on the other hand, use ';' quite heavily:

  void theWorldsLongestFunction(int way, int too, int many, int parameters);

Then,

  0f,;;;

Is my self-approved way to jump through the parameters.

I use ; a lot.

However I don't mind using shift as I always press it with the opposite hand to one that's pressing the key to be shifted.

I also use a lot insert mode Ctrl commands.

I think any keyboard interface that you can use without looking at the keyboard is Ok by me.

I would probably be happy enough in emacs even with all the weird cording but I'm just too wedded to Vim at this point to want to change.

Emacs users consider a keychord as a single action so that would be 2 keychords plus the foo <Enter> bar <Enter> for a total of 10 actions.

This subthread is now keyboard-based editor golf, :p

Well if you like it you'll love http://www.vimgolf.com/

Except the emacs sequence will get you tendinitis in the long run, won't it?

That's why your rebind Caps Lock to act as your foot pedal.

It depends on the usage, I guess. I have been using Emacs with its stock key-bindings for more than 10 years. I don't even remap my Caps Lock to behave like Ctrl like many others do. Yet I have never felt any issues due to repetitive strain yet. I do touch-type though which means I use the left Ctrl/Alt/Shift key while typing a key on the right side of the keyboard and I use the right Ctrl/Alt/Shift for typing a key on the left side of the keyboard. Maybe that distributes the repetitive strain evenly to both hands.

In the Emacs world, while remapping Caps Lock to Ctrl helps in reducing strain for many people, it also causes strain for some people. Every time, this discussion comes up in the Freenode #emacs channel, I have always noticed someone mentioning that remapping Caps Lock to behave like Ctrl caused them RSI.

Surprisingly, I did suffer from pain due to repetitive strain under the base of my forefinger once which seemed to be linked to overuse of mouse. The repetitive clicking, dragging and dropping in the Windows world nearly 10 years ago had taken a toll on my right hand forefinger. Taking inspiration from how we use keyboard with both hands, I then taught myself to use mouse with both hands (alternating between left hand and right hand every hour or so) and the pain gradually disappeared.

Yes, that's why I use Vim and not Emacs. Much easier on the hands.

I also avoid using hjkl all the time and use the arrow keys to counter RSI.

Personally, if my cursor was on the "foo" I'd probably use:

  *gcn<bar>.

That is:

  * (highlight all occurrences of foo)
  gcn (globally changes the highlighted pattern)
  <bar> (the text you want to replace with)
  . (repeat the command as many times as you want).

If you know you want to change all the occurrences at once you can highlight "foo" with * (shift-8) and then use :%s//bar/g as it will be set as the last regexp.

Once I tried Vim because everyone says it's faster, but I found that to be exaggerated. For example:

save in Vim:

  [esc] : w enter

3 or 4 keystrokes involving two hands.

save in emacs:

  C-x-s

one 3 fingered chord with the left hand.

And the chords can be hit much faster than key sequences.

If you're using Vim or Emacs with the default configuration you're wasting most of the potential. Add `map <C-x><C-s> <Esc>:w<CR>` to your .vimrc and now you have the exact same C-x-s shortcut in all modes. Although I personally prefer Alt-s(`<A-s>`).

Vim can be much faster because it can be adapted to the user. For me that's the whole point of using it, otherwise I might as well just use VS Code and curse at the annoyances every day.

Nano: M-R f o o Enter b a r Enter A

11 keystrokes.

Also note that with newer Emacs version there is project.el, where all you have to do to replace all instances of "foo" with "bar" is:

which are 12 keystrokes, if I'm not mistaken, and does more.

E-macs doesn't have two extra leopards, it has exactly the correct number of leopards ALL THE TIME!

Hence the EMACS name: Escape Meta Alt Control Shift.

When I w' lad everyone knew it stood for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping. ;)

I'm pretty sure though that Emacs is actually short for Editor MACroS.

A nod to the fact that Emacs is really an extensible Lisp system rather than just an editor or IDE.

As far as I know E was just the name of an extensible editor back then, and the very first thing named Emacs was a useful collection of custom macros. And then followed various reimplementations of the whole program until one written in C stuck around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com