And entirely topical. Young programmers who read such posts may not realize how many more efficient options are now available. Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013.
This may come as a surprise, but modern programming editors don't require the operator to switch between three mutually exclusive modes -- insert, delete and navigate. That's because modern keyboards have keys dedicated to those purposes, which means the operator doesn't have to either wonder which mode he is in, or switch modes, which saves an enormous amount of time when programming.
The first step toward modern editing is use of the arrow keys for navigation. The next step is to realize, if the arrow keys can reposition the cursor without using letter keys, then maybe there's no reason to have to switch modes.
Vim's focus on keyboards that no longer exist, and on displays that no longer exist (including the paper terminal I used with vi while working for NASA forty years ago), requires an incredible number of unnecessary keystrokes, as exemplified in this typical conversation:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379198/in-vim-how-do-i-d...
Notice that no one says "have you considered solving the problem by changing editors?"
You speak as if modal editing came first and universally agreed upon better things evolved afterwards. I know this isn't true. I know you know this isn't true. You're being highly disingenuous.
Your link is equally disingenuous since you either don't understand that the operation involved there is not one you can do in-stride or with as few keys in any other "modern" editor, or if I give you slightly more credit but presume malice then you're being willfully misleading again.
That's not to say that modern editors don't have their advantages but I think it is a bit of a stretch to argue that modern editors are substantially better at editing text than vim.
Sure those F-keys can be useful. If I'd like to change the screen brightness or skip to next song. Pause/Home/Insert/Print... Half of the time they don't do anything the other half they don't do anything useful. And then there are a bunch of keys that toggle a light and change the behaviour of keys to annoy everyone. Because switching the num block from one duplicated set of functionalities to another greatly increases the available keys!
No wonder 'modern' editors use so many shortcuts. There are simply far more useful functions to perform than keys. Most newer editors go the emacs way and make you press a bunch of modifier keys. Vim makes you go through modes. I prefer to hit easy to reach keys multiple times, but to each his own.
And when talking about IDEs and code writing remember to include VIM plugins in comparison.
In answer, I have to say that nearly every other text editor that exists is more efficient than vi/vim. Modern editors are mode-free, meaning (don't faint) you don't have to change modes to insert, delete and navigate. These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat.
Vi/vim is the oldest editor still commonly available. I used it in the 1970s when I worked for NASA, on a "paper terminal". In that environment, its quirks made sense because they saved paper. Since then, it has been completely superseded by newer, better programs.
Even my now-ancient program Apple Writer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer) was easier to use, largely because my program addressed and solved some of vi's more annoying problems. There's a reason Apple Writer became a best-seller -- one of them was that fact that, by eliminating modes, it represented a huge improvement over existing editors, including vi.
But that was the early 1980s. If I had been told then that I would still be trying to get people to use more efficient editors over 30 years, later I would have laughed -- impossible!
Second, in VIM there are three modes, that's true, but not the ones you enumerate. There is: insert mode, normal mode and visual mode. All modern editors have at least the last one: the editor (all of them) behaves differently when you have some text selected.
Third, in VIM you can freely delete and navigate (with arrows!) in insert mode. No problem at all. Even things like ctrl+left for to skip a word backwards work.
Fourth, sheer amount of commands and functions makes the cheatsheets you mention valuable, they are not needed because the functions are so weird, they are needed because there is so many of them. I saw cheatsheets for Word and Photoshop too. You could argue that paint is better than photoshop because you don't need a cheatsheet to use it, but I doubt you'd want to do that. It's the same for editors: you don't need a cheatsheet for notepad...
Fifth, VIM evolved to the point that it is effectively a platform for building text processing apps, similar to Emacs. There's VIMScript and Python, Ruby and Lua support. With this there is practically no limit to what you can make VIM do for you.
To summarize: you seem to mistake VIM for vi; please take a closer look at modern VIM and then come back with a critique that makes sense in 2013.
> These editors don't need "cheat sheets" to help you figure out how to switch modes and navigate, because you don't have to cheat.
I haven't used a cheat sheet with vim in years now. I don't think I used a cheat sheet after a month of using vim. `:w` is as natural to me as ctrl-s. Slightly more natural, because I don't have to think in order to turn a save into a save as, if I want to write the contents to another file.
And if we want to talk cheat sheets, wouldn't you consider menus in non-modal editors to be cheat sheets, since they show both the keyboard shortcut, and the action, side by side?
Speaking about vim as though it's an obvious choice in 2013 would be like insisting that everyone code in Fortran in 2013.
Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language? I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s.
Yes, and what better place?
> Oh, now talking about how to use vim effectively is like insisting that everyone uses an archaic programming language?
Based on the number of objections to a discussion of vim's alternatives, yes -- that's a legitimate comparison.
> I suppose if we were to have a post here talking about how to use the command line effectively, you'd feel obliged to educate young programmers that we've moved on from the 1970s.
Only in the midst of an amazing discussion that included various "cheat-sheet" strategies to get around the behaviors of an editor that demands cheating to be productive. Given that context, saying that newer editors don't require you to cheat seems entirely topical.
Otherwise - in a slightly less nice way than last time - get lost.
If that's your argument in favor of vi/vim, then other vi/vim users may ask you not to be on their side.
