> Platform conventions matter because uniformity matters.
There are tradeoffs to using software that has different shortcuts for similar things you might do in other software. Uniformity is nice, but I don't find it to be so essential that there is no room for any different ways of working.
> It's a mystery to me why people just accept that in their (terminal) text editor, copying text uses a different shortcut than it does in their web browser.
I don't think they "just accept" it. In the case of emacs (and I believe vim also), you can enable a CUA mode if you wish, and have keybindings that are more like the system. However, in my experience, users of both of those text editors (and indeed, I use both) often choose to use the normal keybindings of those editors intentionally. In my opinion, it doesn't "consume brain cycles for no good reason". There are two very different approaches between those two editors, both are perfectly reasonable and valid. The fact that "modern alternatives exist..." is not necessarily relevant. People have been using both of those editors for years, and they are well versed in how they work and can be very efficient using them. Suggesting that they should just switch to a modern alternative makes some broad assumptions. 1) That they would be happier using some "modern alternative". 2) That whatever value they get from using those editors with different keybindings pales in comparison to what they would gain from switching to an editor with bindings more consistent with the system.
I don't believe you can assume either of those things for most of the people who choose to continue to use either of those editors after working in them for a significant amount of time.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your viewpoint. It's just that not everyone finds that uniformity to be as important as you do.
I also think it is important to point out that both vim and emacs are in active development, so it is not as if either of them has been "mothballed". So while their user interface conventions are very different from much "modern" software, it is not as if they are abandoned -- both are still being developed. They obviously both have significant value to a lot of people.
There are tradeoffs to using software that has different shortcuts for similar things you might do in other software. Uniformity is nice, but I don't find it to be so essential that there is no room for any different ways of working.
> It's a mystery to me why people just accept that in their (terminal) text editor, copying text uses a different shortcut than it does in their web browser.
I don't think they "just accept" it. In the case of emacs (and I believe vim also), you can enable a CUA mode if you wish, and have keybindings that are more like the system. However, in my experience, users of both of those text editors (and indeed, I use both) often choose to use the normal keybindings of those editors intentionally. In my opinion, it doesn't "consume brain cycles for no good reason". There are two very different approaches between those two editors, both are perfectly reasonable and valid. The fact that "modern alternatives exist..." is not necessarily relevant. People have been using both of those editors for years, and they are well versed in how they work and can be very efficient using them. Suggesting that they should just switch to a modern alternative makes some broad assumptions. 1) That they would be happier using some "modern alternative". 2) That whatever value they get from using those editors with different keybindings pales in comparison to what they would gain from switching to an editor with bindings more consistent with the system.
I don't believe you can assume either of those things for most of the people who choose to continue to use either of those editors after working in them for a significant amount of time.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your viewpoint. It's just that not everyone finds that uniformity to be as important as you do.
I also think it is important to point out that both vim and emacs are in active development, so it is not as if either of them has been "mothballed". So while their user interface conventions are very different from much "modern" software, it is not as if they are abandoned -- both are still being developed. They obviously both have significant value to a lot of people.