My thoughts exactly (although mine might not have been worded that well :) ).
Vim-bindings are like a REPL, but on a different level. If you compare a REPL to a loop of "save, compile, run, enter passwords, wait for a specific event to trigger", you might get a grasp of what a Vim-enthusiast gets out of the editor. They've fixed the thing to fix and moved on while you're still trying to find out where your mouse movement went.
That might sound a bit exaggerated, but for the skeptics, I propose an experiment: Switch your keyboard to a different language (say Turkish, if you're very brave) and try to code for a couple of minutes. I do that regularly (my colleagues don't use the same layout as me), and I'd wager it's about the same level of annoyance as not being able to use Vim-bindings if you're used to them.
I'm not saying that there aren't other effective ways of editing text, I'm merely finding that the defaults aren't very good.
I couldn't agree more. For me, that's working with a Logitech Anywhere MX mouse in Sublime Text. I imagine how I want the text on screen to be transformed and it just happens without conscious thought.
My big complaint is that the buttons eventually start to fail. Single clicks will sometimes register as double clicks and click-drag operations start to drop early.
I would too. But I'd be willing to wager on the results beforehand.
> b) see if it makes a difference in productivity. (Most of what makes me slow at work is trying to understand technical problems, not trying to find parts of text in my editor.)
There's no doubt that things like understanding technical problems, avoiding procrastination, and many non-technical factors are the high-order bits of productivity.
That said, the context of this conversation is text-editor optimization. Also, I think the true benefit of an optimized text editor isn't in raw time savings but in increased flow and just the joy of having a tool that feels like the extension of your mind, rather than something your mind works around.