Why are there so few modal-editors that aren't

Question

Pretty much every other editor that isn't a vi descendant (vim, cream, vi-emu) seems to use the emacs shortcuts (ctrl+w to delete back a word and so on)

Answer 1

I recently came across divascheme - an alternative set of key bindings for DrScheme. This is modal, and part of the justification is to do with RSI - specifically avoiding lots of wrist twisting to hit Ctrl-Alt-Shift-something. The coder has done an informal survey of fellow coders and found that emacs users suffered from more wrist pain than vi coders.

You can see him doing a short talk at LugRadio Live USA. (The video is a series of 5 minute talks and I can't remember how far through it is, sorry - if someone watches it and posts that here I'll edit this post to say when in the video it is).

Note I have not used divascheme.

Answer 2

Um... maybe there isn't much of a need for one, given that Vi/Vim is pretty much available everywhere and got the whole modal thing right? :)

Answer 3

Early software was often modal, but usability took a turn at some point, away from this style.

VI-based editors are total enigmas -- they're the only real surviving members of that order of software.

Modes are a no-no in usability and interaction design because we humans are fickle mammals who cannot be trusted to remember what mode the application is in.

If you think you are in one "mode" when you are actually in another, then all sorts of badness can ensue. What you believe to be a series of harmless keystrokes can (in the wrong mode) cause unlimited catastrophe. This is known as a "mode error".

To learn more, search for the term "modeless" (and "usability")

As mentioned in the comments below, a Modal interface in the hands of an experienced and non-fickle person can be extremely efficient.

Answer 4

I think that it's because vi (and its ilk) already occupies the ecological niche of modal editors.

The number of people who prefer modal and haven't yet been attracted to vi is probably 0, so the hypothetical vi competitor would have to be so great as to make a significant number of vi users switch. This isn't likely. The cost of switching editors is huge and the vi-s are probably already as good as modal editors go. Well, maybe a significant breakthrough could improve upon them, but I find this unlikely.

Answer 5

Modal editors have the huge advantage to touch typists that you can navigate around the screen without taking your hands off the home row. My wrists only hurt when I'm doing stuff that requires me to move my hand off the keyboard and onto the mouse or arrow keys and back constantly.

Answer 6

VIM and emacs make about as much user interface design sense as qwerty. We now have available modern computer optimized key layouts (see the colemak layout and the carpalx project); it's only a matter of time before someone does the same for text editors.