Well this is a take.

It’s weird how much the author fixates on Vim being “visible” and implies multiple cursors and features in Sublime aren’t. Just because your brain is trained to not think about it anymore doesn’t make it any less visible.

Multiple cursors aren’t a native feature in many tools, it is still something to learn how to use, let alone effectively — just as Vim key bindings are. Plus, vim is more than just a TUI choice for terminal-only users, it’s key bindings for people that have learned that a keyboard is a natural extension of themselves and would rather not jump back and forth to mice repeatedly — just as “multiple cursors” can be to a sublime user of 15 years.

▲

gingerBill 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not what I was saying. I used vim macros specifically as an example, not Vim as a whole.

> I’ve had people tell me how “fun” it was to build a macro to handle some one-off text-refactoring problem. But when I looked at what they were doing and how long it took, my honest reaction was: I could have done that in Sublime in a minute with multiple cursors, or just written a quick script.

and

> What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great.

If you can affectively use vim macros, then GREAT! But if you cannot, even with using vim for decades, then please don't advertise them as the "fun" part.

	▲	skydhash 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The things about multiple cursors is that you think about the processing while doing it, while most people using macros looks at the structure of the text first and then devise the macro. I wouldn’t say the latter is faster, but it’s a different mindset. And the other thing is that vim has the “dot” command to repeat your last edit. Similar to macros, you think about your local edit first, then about where to repeat it (usually tied to the next item in the search list). Edit (after reading the article). Both vim and emacs (which have the steep learning curve) are aimed at power users. It’s best to compare them to professional tools like CAD, DAW, industrial appliances,… The friction when learning is because a lot of users don’t know what’s possible to do or even have the kind of problems that experienced users do (or they fail to perceive them as issues). After a while, it becomes like an extension of your thinking and the tool disappears.

▲

wtetzner 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What I find especially weird is that I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describe vim as a puzzle that's fun to solve. The most common sentiment is that it has a learning curve, but ends up being worth it.

	▲	kibwen 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't think of vim as a puzzle, but I do use it because I find it fun to use in some ineffable way. Note that I also don't claim that it makes me more productive; I use it because it sparks joy, regardless of however productive it makes me.
	▲	latexr 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describe vim as a puzzle that's fun to solve. Search for “vim puzzle” and you’ll find entire websites dedicated to it. Here’s a random one: https://vimventure.dev/

▲

elsjaako 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From the article:

> multiple cursors really are better than macros 99.999% of the time (since they give direct visual feedback)

I don't know what he means, vim macros also give direct visual feedback while writing them. You just edit as normal while recording, and replay those edits later. I think it is technically possible to write a macro without seeing the live effect on the text as you write it, but I've never done that.

I looked up multiple cursors out of interest, I guess the advantage is that it's one interface that is easy to explain. I would use multiple vim commands to replace it in practice.

I'll agree that multiple cursors are maybe better than macros for most of the things that someone would use multiple cursors for, but usually I wouldn't use macro's.

But I think most of the things I do with macro's cannot be done with multiple cursors.

I would be very interested in being proven wrong, if someone has some examples of "this is where multiple cursors are great, and vim doesn't have a good alternative".

	▲	gingerBill 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You just edit as normal while recording, and replay those edits later. And there is the problem. The first time you do the edit, it might be fine, but when you make a mistake in the edit, you then have to go back and correct all of the cases. With multiple cursors, I am seeing instant visual feedback on all instances of the cursor at once. I am getting literally 2D spatial information, compared to the 1D spatial information per each replay. The multiple cursors approach is better not because it's a different mindset or whatever, but rather it produces a different feedback loop to correct mistakes. If you still prefer the macro approach over the multiple cursors approach, then you do you. But as an example in the article, I have seen people think they are being productive by their own standards, and they really aren't.

▲

latexr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed. I used to enjoy vim macros, but ever since switching to Helix I reach for its multiple cursors all the time and barely use its macros. But that doesn’t mean multiple cursors don’t have a learning curve, I still need to think of he method to place the cursors in the right places.

▲

ahahs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think I noticed halfway through reading that most of this is AI nonsense.