Dropping people like that into an editor that requires you to somehow know ":q!" is the answer is utterly insane. Same with beginner tutorials using vi.
It's straight up bad for linux adoption even if technically superior. Anyone that is a vi fan likely has the skillset to install it themselves - the reverse is not always true.
I think the idea that Vim is "technically superior" should be challenged as well. I've watched, and participated in, dozens of discussions on text editors, and have never been shown a concrete piece of scientific evidence demonstrating Vim's claimed superiority according to any real-world metric. All we have are artificial comparisons where it takes Vim 37 keystrokes to transform a Christmas carol into the lyrics of a death metal song, while it takes Nano an unacceptable 51 keystrokes to do the same (of course, this only works if you take half an hour beforehand to mentally construct that 37-keystroke sequence).
The pros of modal editing is well documented, and I'm not even arguing about the superiority of vim over the likes of emacs.
People who believe using cursor to select, move, copy stuff are better than modal editing, even after all the argument, is probably not going to be swayed ever. As an almost pure vim user, I know how my own speed are significantly improved ever since I adopted vim and its modals, and I don't need to mentally construct keystrokes just like most people don't need to look at a keyboard to type.
The demonstration are mostly some edge cases that don't really happen, but the general speed over general editing, some `V}y` here, some `ci(` there, some `Vjj2>`, `c-vwwGx` etc is what makes vim really shine. And no we don't have to dig a dictionary to type those things, all I had to do was to open vim since that's how muscle memory works.
Finally! Someone who knows where that elusive data is hidden that actually shows why modal editing is better.
Wait, did you forget to link to the study?
On previous tens of discussion surely someone has came up with something, only for you to dismiss it as gimmicky. I am not going to spend much effort on a lost cause, but quick googling came up with this blog: https://eli-rodriguez.com/en/posts/modal-editing-the-superio...
Enjoy moving your cursor around when you edit text, but welcome to the club if I am wrong and you can be convinced.
You're right, that's not going to convince me. Because I apply the same basic standard of plausibility that I do to all claims I hear. When someone tells me I should start using homeopathy, and there's no need for any actual evidence in favor of it because the benefits are "well known" to its practitioners, I don't need to hear any more to make up my mind. This is really no different.
Let's take a step back from vim: what kind of data will demonstrate satisfactory performance over any kind of editor for your liking?
I mean, there are studies examining how the quality of Git commits is affected by blood alcohol levels, so that doesn't seem like an overly exotic topic by comparison.
This seems like a classic case of setting the bar arbitrarily high to stifle discussion - I cannot find any, but would love to be proven wrong.
I don't know, you tell me. You're making the claim that one is superior. The burden of proof is on you.
Asking specifically to a level of proof that does not exist either way on a subject that does not pertains to such a level of proof is merely stifling discussion, not to mention that the claim that the editors are equal in capability are not immediately obvious and proof absolving.
Though it's convenient for you that you consider anything higher than your own standards "infinite".
Impressive.
This is made especially difficult by the subjective nature of discussion.
yypVr-I wonder if you've ever seen scientific evidence of the contrary? Or any kind of scientific evidence on this matter?
If not, it seems that you're just using this as an excuse to rationalize your own prejudice, and the counter-argument is really easy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in this case, or vim's advantages)
Even if you don't believe that there's a speed advantage (it's entirely plausible that the delay from cognitive processing necessary to navigate vim's more complex interface dwarfs the speed increase of pressing fewer keys), I find it hard to defend the idea that pressing significantly more keys is not ergonomically worse than pressing fewer (controlling for effort variables e.g. using the Carpalx model[0]).
I can’t really compare to eg. Emacs bindings, as I have no experience with those, but most text editors have nothing, and if you have to reach for a mouse or arrow keys instead Vim is imo going to be much better once you’ve learnt it.
But the whole modality thing is insane for a newbie; vim is a fine editor as a conscious choice of course.
That cute bottom bar is the reason Nano wins. It provides a safety net.