Can't you use :q and then :x instead of :q then :wq ?

Yes, but if I :q and it complains that the file was modified, and I decide that the change is worthwhile, :wq and :x are equivalent, since :x is only different when the file isn’t modified.

You may argue that :x is shorter, but one thing is character count and another is muscle memory distance because of mnemonic similarity between :q and :wq.

Could alias x to wq? :-) That's what I'm doing after discovering this!

Alias x to q, I think you mean.

I use :x cus it's one less keystroke. And yes, I still use :q to make sure I don't save in case I changed something by mistake.

ZZ is only 3 keystrokes as opposed to 4 for :x (shift + z + z = 3 and shift + ; + x + enter = 4). It also doesn't require timing the release of shift before the press of x.

Wow! Never knew that existed. If I can undo 20 years of muscle memory, I'll use it. :D

EDIT: Just tried it, and Z being right next to Shift is a deal breaker.

Why not use the other Shift if that's a problem?

Switch to a German QWERTZ keyboard. That’ll also help with giving rusty muscle memory a fresh kick.

It's funny but I use q when I don't intend to change things and wq in whatever state I'm seeing them and x when I'm working on clean git state.

Honestly it sounds complex, but I don't even think about it and it only struck me reading your comment.

The warning note on q is desirable.

I use the 'confirm' option in my vim config, that way I can always use :q and then get a prompt on what to do if a file's been changed.

I also map <C-q> to :q to speed things up a bit.

This is precisely why I use w and q instead of x. Not knowing if it wrote is definitely not a feature I'd want.

ZQ will quit without writing anything.