Why are there so few modal-editors that aren't vi*?

Question

Pretty much every other editor that isn't a vi descendant (vim, cream, vi-emu) seems to use the emacs shortcuts (ctrl+w to delete back a word and so on)

Answer 1

Um... maybe there isn't much of a need for one, given that Vi/Vim is pretty much available everywhere and got the whole modal thing right? :)

Answer 2

I believe Eclipse has Vi bindings and there is a Visual Studio plugin/extension, too (which is called Vi-Emu, or something).

Answer 3

@Peter: The Eclipse extension is called ViPlugin and the VS.Net extension is, like you said, ViEmu.

Answer 4

Early software was often modal, but usability took a turn at some point, away from this style.

VI-based editors are total enigmas -- they're the only real surviving members of that order of software.

Modes are a no-no in usability and interaction design because we humans are fickle mammals who cannot be trusted to remember what mode the application is in.

If you think you are in one "mode" when you are actually in another, then all sorts of badness can ensue. What you believe to be a series of harmless keystrokes can (in the wrong mode) cause unlimited catastrophe. This is known as a "mode error".

To learn more, search for the term "modeless" (and "usability")

Answer 5

Though not really answering your question, there used to be a "modal like" way to write Japanese on cell phones before : The first letter you hit was a conson let's say K, and then, and then the next key you would hit would have the role of a conson. (Having two conson in a row is impossible in Japanese)

Though it was main a few years ago, today it's only used by people who really want to hit fast.

Answer 6

@Leon: Great answer.

@dbr: Modal editing is something that takes a while to get used to. If you were to build a new editor that fits this paradigm, how would you improve on VI/VIM/Emacs? I think that is, in part, an answer to the question. Getting it "right" is hard enough, competing agains the likes of VI/VIM/Emacs would be extremely tough -- most people who use these editors are "die hard" fans, and you'd have to give them a compelling reason to move to another editor. Those people who don't use them already are most likely going to stay in a non-modal editor. IMHO of course ;)

Answer 7

I recently came across divascheme - an alternative set of key bindings for DrScheme. This is modal, and part of the justification is to do with RSI - specifically avoiding lots of wrist twisting to hit Ctrl-Alt-Shift-something. The coder has done an informal survey of fellow coders and found that emacs users suffered from more wrist pain than vi coders.

You can see him doing a short talk at LugRadio Live USA. (The video is a series of 5 minute talks and I can't remember how far through it is, sorry - if someone watches it and posts that here I'll edit this post to say when in the video it is).

Note I have not used divascheme.

Answer 8

Modal editors have the huge advantage to touch typists that you can navigate around the screen without taking your hands off the home row. My wrists only hurt when I'm doing stuff that requires me to move my hand off the keyboard and onto the mouse or arrow keys and back constantly.

Answer 9

It's worth noting that the vi input models survival is in part due it's adoption in the POSIX standard, so investing time in learning would mean your guarenteed to be able to work on any system complying to these standards. So, like English, theres power in ubiquity.

As far as alternatives go, I doubt an alternate model editor would survive a 30 day free trial period, so its the same reason more people drive automatics than fly jets.

Answer 10

I think that it's because vi (and its ilk) already occupies the ecological niche of modal editors.

The number of people who prefer modal and haven't yet been attracted to vi is probably 0, so the hypothetical vi competitor would have to be so great as to make a significant number of vi users switch. This isn't likely. The cost of switching editors is huge and the vi-s are probably already as good as modal editors go. Well, maybe a significant breakthrough could improve upon them, but I find this unlikely.

Answer 11

I think the answer to the question is actually there are quite a few modal text editors that aren't forks of vi/vim. However they all use the vi key bindings. Vi users get the key bindings into their muscle memory so relearning a different set of key bindings would be really hard, so no-one would create a different set of key bindings.

But lots of different editors have re-implemented the vi key bindings from scratch. Just look at this question about IDEs with vi key bindings. At least half of the answers are editors built from scratch that implement vi key bindings, not versions of vi embedded.

Answer 12

VIM and emacs make about as much user interface design sense as qwerty. We now have available modern computer optimized key layouts (see the colemak layout and the carpalx project); it's only a matter of time before someone does the same for text editors.