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 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.
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.
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.
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.:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you have only one or two switches, you can use the DIRECT_PINS configuration to directly put one switch per input pin rather than the more conventional switch matrix approach. You can use the XD002 code as a starting point (https://github.com/qmk/qmk_firmware/tree/master/keyboards/xd..., https://github.com/qmk/qmk_firmware/blob/master/keyboards/xd...). It uses a DigiSpark rather than the more common Arduino Pro Micro. The DigiSpark is a bit fiddly and has very little program memory, but it is very cheap and simple.
As a new-ish pedal steel player, I can offer some ergonomic advices. This isn't a very popular instrument, so this may need an introduction: pedal steel is kind of like a guitar with a system of knee lever and foot pedals to modify string tension on the fly. The most used pedals are the leftmost two (in classic country), and you need to be able to select each one independently or together pretty fast.
My main takeaway:
* You usually don't use your ankle that way, so it will seems impossible at first, but you will very fast get used to "ankle rolling" which will make you able to select each pedal without moving your foot sideways
* The height of the pedal is crucial. On steel, you will have a threaded rod to set the height. You usually want (if you are using your left foot) the leftmost pedal to be around 10mm higher and with a shorter course (for both pedal to be at the same height when depressed).
* Footwear impacts your feeling, especially heel height. So if you plan to use such a device with a specific shoe, train with that specific shoe.
If you want to build such a pedal (especially a "chorded" version), I think taking cues from pedal steel hardware would be a good idea, as you need to be able to play for hours without straining your legs.
Used to use one. Lots of ankle fatigue and slow thought to action time. Never trained myself sufficiently or fast enough. Tried both clutch and toggle mode. Perhaps switch was too light. Had to worry about accidentally triggering by resting foot.
Plus side was easy to get working everywhere, including inside Ideavim.
This is cool and all, but nearly useless for any experienced vimmer.
I almost never press `i` to enter insert mode, and I don't expect most vimmers to do so either. My most common ways to enter insert mode are, off the top of my head...
o -- Open new line below current line, enter insert mode.
O -- Open new line above current line, enter insert mode.
ci( -- Delete all text between the nearest parenthesis and enter insert mode within the parens.
A -- Jump to end of line and enter insert mode.
I -- Jump to start of line and enter insert mode.
C -- Delete to end of line, enter insert mode.
cc -- Delete entire current line and enter insert mode.
ctX -- Delete to the character X where X is whatever character I see ahead of my cursor that I want to delete up to, and leave me in insert mode.
cfX -- Same as ctX except include the found character in the deletion, then enter insert mode.
Well, what makes thumb keys so great is that the thumbs are particularly independent of what your other fingers are doing. Foot switches fill the same purpose.
You can only have so many keys under your other fingers, and the more you add, the more movement will be required of your hand.
Imagine that with emacs: it's easy! Simply double-clutch the "Ctrl" and "Super" pedals while pressing Alt+Shift+T on the keyboard to open a new block context and auto-indent to the correct tab stop. ;)
Upshifting, it isn't usually necessary, though I'm not a street racer, so I can't comment on the validity of that particular quote [0].
Downshifting, particularly into first as you're coming to a stop sign, it'll save a fair amount of wear on the synchros. Or if you have a car with worn synchros, it'll help ensure a quicker, smoother downshift in general. A 5-3 downshift on an offramp usually benefits, for instance.
[0] Given the substantial liberties they took in general, your skepticism might be justified.
Try it (shifting at high RPMs, specifically near redline) in a Honda Civic (or any other decent, but not higher end car) and you’ll see. Shift at normal RPM ranges and you’d be right to feel doubtful it would be faster.
Organ pedals would work for that. I think typically those just use magnets and reed switches (when connected electronically rather than mechanically).
Not to be confused with reed organs, which usually just have one big pedal that operates the bellows. Though sometimes they also have levers you can push to the side with your knee.
In general yes, but there are still some cases where mouse is better than the equivalent keys. Mainly resizing splits (guess how many lines you want and then C-w <size>|, vs just dragging the divider).
Moreover, where is the concurrency? I mean, you cannot start typing until you're in insert mode.
The i<text>ESC are serialized.
How is it faster if the i and ESC are foot operated? You can't start typing until the pedal is down. You can't lift the pedal until you've finished the entry, and you can't give a command until the pedal is up.
seems like it would be awfully slow for any experienced vimmer also. Seems like a really bad idea for a foot pedal / vim integration.
A, possibly, much better idea would be if you press the pedal, is turn the hjkl keys into sending actual arrow key keycodes so those annoying times when you need to arrow through OS menus etc you can use your vim instincts. Not that I'd ever want to incorporate a foot pedal myself, but seems like a better use. Vims keyboard drive approach is super quick as is, if you are having trouble with getting into and out of insert mode, maybe Vim isn't for you.
> if you are having trouble with getting into and out of insert mode, maybe Vim isn't for you.
I've got a question there actually. The only thing that throws off my flow while using Vim is exiting insert mode, as my keyboard has an inconvenient esc key. Is there a better way to exit? I've done some cursory looking but haven't found anything that looks useful.
(Remapping my keyboard isn't a viable option, as I game on my machine sometimes, and occasionally need weirdly specific keys.)
It doesn’t type it into a buffer, iirc. I removed that from my config because it annoyed me that when I press j alone it only appears in a buffer after a delay.
I remap capslock as escape, using autohotkey, and I game a lot, the dyson sphere program was the first game that actually had a problem, so you can either turn the script off while playing, or make the script smarter to not be active during the game. Having said that, it is worth getting used to Ctrl-[ which is the same thing, and is a standard binding which is useful when you are not on your own machine.
To add to this ci works for all sorts of things like [ { < “ ‘ etc.
There’s also di (delete in) and vi (visual select in) and probably a ton of others that I don’t know about. I’ll never know all of the wonderful ways to use vim
Is shift-S faster than cc? The keys are farther away from each other, but I guess you can get some bonus by pressing them "in parallel"... For me, cc feels faster. Although I might feel differently if it was, say pp vs shift-S.
> Is shift-S faster than cc? The keys are farther away from each other
In my case, my left pinky rests on the shift and my left ring-finger rests on the "s", so shift-S is just pressing the keys my fingers are already resting on.
I guess it's a habit from using the left Shift (and left Ctrl) a lot more frequently than the "A". If I just used the keyboard for writing text, perhaps resting on "A" would make more sense for me.
Not for vim, but in windows I use Autohotkey to translate midi messages into macros. Get yourself a cheap midi keyboard with a bunch of buttons and knobs like the akai mpk mini or the arturia minilab 2 and you have a ton of controls to customize for any macro you want. I personally use the minilab.
Take some desk space but way way way more controls. Also, if you get interested in modular synths you can download VCV Rack for free and learn about modular synthesis with a small controller for basically free.
Or you could just get a razor tartarus or whatever they're calling them now and do similar without the midi part but with razors proprietary hardware and software.
I use a foot pedal for copy and paste operations when I want to give my hands a rest and to distribute heavy editing duties over to my feet when the occasion arises.
(And if you don't mind a crippled non-programmable firmware, you can get it cheaper as a VEC Infinity IN-USB-2, and run a daemon on your laptop to translate joystick-style button events in to keyboard events.)
Very easy to build with new customisable mech keyboard PCBs. Not tricky.
Problem is utility of tool is low. It's foot dexterity vs finger dexterity, not foot vs hand dexterity and foot dexterity is low and hard to improve. I was unable to derive sufficient utility over six months of continuous use. Would advise against.
Unlike guitar pedal, vim pedal expected to be frequently engaged.
Since the parent post was from an Emacs user: I have to disagree.
As an Emacs user, I've loved having a foot-pedal. The foot-pedal is superfluous in Vi because Vi is already modal; the foot-pedal is great in Emacs because it adds modality, kinda. Copying a post I made on Reddit a while ago:
> I found that my brain didn't want to treat the pedals like it did keys--it wanted to treat them modally. I wasn't pressing control, I was entering control-mode. I wasn't pressing shift, I was entering caps-mode. Which works out, because it isn't the quick keystrokes that cause the most strain, it's holding the modifier with one finger while the rest of the hand moves around. I wouldn't use the footpedal Control for the usual quick C-f/b/n/p, but it's great for holding Control as you C-s through a document.
I've plugged an accordion into emacs. Gives 120 buttons on left hand, 64 on right, plus chording and velocity sensitivity (hit a key harder to get upper case).
But you could easily use a midi pedalboard instead, or even in addition.
I can’t count how many times I’ve wanted a pedal when working in VR. Usually when I’m working in Unity and want to put my head and two tracked controllers into a specific pose and then trigger a breakpoint.
In the before times I would ask someone to walk over to my desk and click the mouse when I tell them. A pedal would have been much better!
I sometimes wish my workstation had a few more single-purpose hardware controls for system-level settings - a physical slider for volume, status LEDs for critical system services, a zoom dial, a big red magic-sysrq button with a safety cap, some nice solid on-off switches for wifi, networking, background Dropbox syncing...
Years ago I learnt about a stock dealing company in my country which was experimenting with pedals for their operators. Sadly, I cant't find a link now. But I found that interesting. Could be useful on certain applications in which users have to quickly respond to unexpected events by switching to particular tasks (without having to search for them through ALT+TABbing). I don't know, just speculating here.
I like it, probably wouldn't use it on Vim, but I see potential in other applications.
Years ago, there was a failed gaming device called a Stinky Board, it's a D-PAD controlled with your feet. I got one at a gaming convention and have never put it to good use. Now I have a reason to pull it out of storage.
Thought how great, for a split-second. But key for being 24/7 in front my computer with zero issues for decades is among other things—I move all the time, hence I need a keyboard which moves all the way with me and you can imagine that my feet are also moving their location and nobody wants to arrange all the foot paddles every time you move. And in these times in your home office it's great to put your feet up here and then.
IDK I am totally fine with i, I and A haha and the brain is also faster when processing chords from the fingers only. If you blend feet or even just thumb strokes in you significantly slow down.
edit: just thinking of piano players, maybe I am wrong but this thing feels odd
Neat. I’ve got a similar project myself, but for I’m using an Arduino Pro Micro (Atmega32u4), which emulates a standard keyboard. Program it to send your chord of choice when pressed.
I’m planning on using mine as a mute button for conferencing. Last major hurdle is trying to get the global hotkey configured to send a different keystroke to my conferencing app.
For me, I would reduce the functionality to just one key: ESC. I always pressed ESC key mindlessly when thinking of the next thing to write. I pressed too many useless ESC like fidgeting. If I can offload it to the foot...
I developed the "muscle memory" to use vi decades ago, and have been able to use it ever since, with minor hiccups like too-small ESC keys and the CTRL key moving to its present position on PC keyboards. vi everywhere. On the Amiga I used to have, on Unix boxes of all kinds including an ancient V7 one I played with for a while ("elvis" barely fit), over dialup terminals, over Raspberry Pi serial consoles, everywhere.
If instead you invest muscle memory in a custom hardware assist device, it's lost when you don't have that assist device. Getting used to insert mode vs. not insert mode is really not so bad.
dudes, with my keyboard/settings (windows on iso keyboard with italian layout) the "{" and "}" characters are made with <AltGr>+<RightShift>+<è> and <AltGr>+<RightShift>+"+".
When using a standing desk, I prefer to use a glute squeezer device to switch modes. It feels much more natural, and improves the muscle tone as a bonus.
Amen. It took me weeks of practice before I could produce distinct "control", "alt", and "shift" squeezes, but now I've taken my coding to an entirely new level.
