But I didn't see a single sentence about how this is different from Anki and why? Why do you want to reinvent the wheel when Anki is good enough?
I am using Anki now, btw, although I use it in a very simple way, but I think the point still stands. (Also, I agree that any new SRS should be somehow Anki-compatible.)
All it takes is one quick look at their docs to turn people away to a more mainstream option. Condensing its features into a more bite-sized application can make a world of difference for usability.
"Make good flashcards" is indeed a difficult problem, but not one that is mitigated by a different tool.
"Review every day" is a question of habit formation, which is difficult, but also not a problem that a different tool will do better.
So the default Anki settings are good enough to get started, and allows itself to be customized as the user gets more familiar and better knows their need.
Without Anki import and export, a new tool simply seems to be a dead end to me, even if it slightly simplifies getting started.
I acknowledge it’s simple, runs on terminal only and lacks bells and whistles. But this is also probably why I use it so much.
Question: ...
Answer: ...
I don't think that anyone denies that Anki could be a lot better if it were completely rewritten with the experience of having had Anki for years and knowing its pain points. You just have to have a plan, best based in analysis of Anki (and SuperMemo) to do that.
> There's definitely space for an easy to use SRS out there.
I think there's definitely even space for a hard to use SRS that's easier to deal with. But it's got to start by covering at least 80% of what Anki does already or it's not worth switching.
yes
> and inefficient
no. You can tweak every aspect of srs for each deck as you wish, if it’s inefficient for you - adjust the settings.
Well, sometimes "good enough" isn't really the point. People have different tastes and different motivations.
Why did people use Windows before v3.0 when Mac at the time was objectively better? Why did people bother using OS X when Windows at the time was objectively better? Right now, why are people using Mac OS when UI and UX on Windows is objectively better?
Why use Linux circa 1995 when FreeBSD was objectively better? Why use netBSD now when everything else is objectively better?
I don't know if maybe English is your first language or not, but objective means "based on established fact".
In other words, you don't know the criteria I've used to rank one above the other in all my comparisons, you only know that it is something based on fact.[1]
> these are subjective comparisons that you are making.
No, they aren't.
The reasons a person may choose one option over another can be subjective. The fact that one performs better than another on a certain criteria is objective.
> and different people have different subjective tastes.
But I already said that:
>> People have different tastes and different motivations.
See?
My entire point was that, even if something is objectively better than something else, people may still want the something else due to reasons of taste and motivation.
[1] And, in fact, you could switch almost all of my comparisons around (except for the poor UI/UX on Macs - that comparison was restricted to only the UI/UX) just by using different criteria in the objective comparisons.
UI and UX is not subjective.
That Mac, in 2023, doesn't even have snapping Windows is not an inaccurate observation. No window groups. Barely visible and hard to hit Window titlebar buttons. Fails to remember Window placement for some tools (tkdiff) but not for others.
Without 3rd party addons, Mac window management is unusually poor (compared to various other Window managers, including Windows). Window management is a major component of a UI based on application windows.
None of those things are subjective.
Even with 3rd party add-ons, I eventually gave up and stopped using the MB M1 as soon as I could.