> Vim avoids the use of the mouse, because it’s too slow; Vim even avoids using the arrow keys because it requires too much movement.
I haven't read the article, but this reads to me as "using the mouse is too slow, so try VIM instead and soon you won't need to use the mouse anymore." and "Reaching for the arrow keys takes too much time, so try VIM and keep your hands on the home row for added productivity.", respectively.
The point is that this kind of productivity does not matter at all. I mean, not even 0.00001%.
We deliver complex hardware + software products that have to work correctly under challenging conditions and, ideally, not kill anyone in the process or burn down entire buildings. We do not deliver code-entry athletic performance.
In a typical project code entry time is so ridiculously insignificant that I would never hire anyone who came in and made the typical vi/vim argument about efficiency. This would instantly tell me they have no mental connection to what is actually important.
Another element is that, when you work in a multi-disciplinary environment you don't necessarily have the luxury of sticking with one tool. Which means devoting a lot of time on something like vi is pointless.
Another view: Say you have a team of 100 software engineers and you have to get a complex product out the door. Would taking a month off to train everyone to become a vi/vim ninja make this team deliver properly working bug-free code sooner and at a lower cost? The answer is, of course, no. Or, more accurately, no f-ing way. That's why this cult of efficiency is misguided.
I haven't read the article, but this reads to me as "using the mouse is too slow, so try VIM instead and soon you won't need to use the mouse anymore." and "Reaching for the arrow keys takes too much time, so try VIM and keep your hands on the home row for added productivity.", respectively.