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".

> 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.