> Your arguments are inconsistent and frequently plainly wrong.
It's too bad you're unable to find any examples to support this claim. On that topic, here's just one of your outright lies:
[ my remark ]
>> All to avoid using any control keys. The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys, and vim must work exactly like vi.
[ your reply ]
> That's what you wrote. It's all false.
As a matter of fact, more key entries are always required in vi and vim compared to a modern editor, and two, the control scheme in vi and vim arises from the requirement that it avoid the use of control keys. That was a design requirement, because the original machines it was designed for did not have control or navigation keys. How do I know this? I used those computers, and I used the early versions of the programs under discussion.
Since then, the machines have changed, but vi and vim have not changed.
Stop lying.
> I wanted to, but I think I won't comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it carries no substance whatsoever.
I already used repeated and substantial evidence to prove that that you are lying, and you just lied again.
> And that's all modality does, by itself - replaces a few modifier keys with a single one. It has no impact on average count of keystrokes.
I and others have already proved that this lie is, in point of fact, a lie. Mode-limited editors require more keystrokes than those without modes. Mode-limited editors require you to be aware of, and to change, modes. Those mode changes require extra keystrokes.
* Vi/vim, switch from moving the cursor to editing text: Esc, Esc, :, i, fist text entry. Four additional keystrokes. Newer versions have s shortcut in which you can just press i, to switch modes, one additional keystroke. But all version of vi and vim always require additional keystrokes, compared to a modern editor.
* Modern editor, switch from moving the cursor to entering text: Just start entering text, no additional keystrokes required.
You are lying.
> We're really not interested in ed, ex and vi early history
First, based on the positive votes on my posts, there is no "we" that lacks interest, and second, one of the the reasons your post is so misguided is because you don't know anything about the history you feign disinterest in. The other reason is that, like a religious True Believer, you cannot be persuaded to argue in good faith.
> Anyway, if keystrokes count remains the same, why bother with modality?
One, I just proved that keystroke count doesn't remain the same, and two, the reason for modes is to avoid use of control keys, for the reason that those keys didn't exist on the keyboards for which vi and vim were designed.
The designers of vi and vim had no choices about modes, it resulted from a limitation of 1970-era computers and terminals, and such modes have been abandoned by all modern editors without exception, as a clear hindrance to efficient use of a computer.
It's too bad you're unable to find any examples to support this claim. On that topic, here's just one of your outright lies:
[ my remark ]
>> All to avoid using any control keys. The reason? vi must be able to work with a keyboard that doesn't have any control keys, and vim must work exactly like vi.
[ your reply ]
> That's what you wrote. It's all false.
As a matter of fact, more key entries are always required in vi and vim compared to a modern editor, and two, the control scheme in vi and vim arises from the requirement that it avoid the use of control keys. That was a design requirement, because the original machines it was designed for did not have control or navigation keys. How do I know this? I used those computers, and I used the early versions of the programs under discussion.
Since then, the machines have changed, but vi and vim have not changed.
Stop lying.
> I wanted to, but I think I won't comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it carries no substance whatsoever.
I already used repeated and substantial evidence to prove that that you are lying, and you just lied again.
> And that's all modality does, by itself - replaces a few modifier keys with a single one. It has no impact on average count of keystrokes.
I and others have already proved that this lie is, in point of fact, a lie. Mode-limited editors require more keystrokes than those without modes. Mode-limited editors require you to be aware of, and to change, modes. Those mode changes require extra keystrokes.
* Vi/vim, switch from moving the cursor to editing text: Esc, Esc, :, i, fist text entry. Four additional keystrokes. Newer versions have s shortcut in which you can just press i, to switch modes, one additional keystroke. But all version of vi and vim always require additional keystrokes, compared to a modern editor.
* Modern editor, switch from moving the cursor to entering text: Just start entering text, no additional keystrokes required.
You are lying.
> We're really not interested in ed, ex and vi early history
First, based on the positive votes on my posts, there is no "we" that lacks interest, and second, one of the the reasons your post is so misguided is because you don't know anything about the history you feign disinterest in. The other reason is that, like a religious True Believer, you cannot be persuaded to argue in good faith.
> Anyway, if keystrokes count remains the same, why bother with modality?
One, I just proved that keystroke count doesn't remain the same, and two, the reason for modes is to avoid use of control keys, for the reason that those keys didn't exist on the keyboards for which vi and vim were designed.
The designers of vi and vim had no choices about modes, it resulted from a limitation of 1970-era computers and terminals, and such modes have been abandoned by all modern editors without exception, as a clear hindrance to efficient use of a computer.
Stop lying.