Arrow Keys?

Arrow Keys?

[Chris Gordon-Smith]

Hello All

I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the Emacs 
documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather than 
arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those arrow 
keys still seem pretty attractive.

Chris Gordon-Smith
www.simsoup.info

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Christian Herenz]

Chris Gordon-Smith schrieb:
> Hello All
> 
> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the Emacs 
> documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather than 
> arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those arrow 
> keys still seem pretty attractive.

Yeah... I also tend to use them frequently for navigational purposes. But, I 
think the general idea is, that you dont have to move the hand away from the 
area which it is on, when you are writing.

Greets,
Christian

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Christian
Herenz<herenz@physik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Chris Gordon-Smith schrieb:
>>
>> Hello All
>>
>> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the
>> Emacs documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather
>> than arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those
>> arrow keys still seem pretty attractive.
>
> Yeah... I also tend to use them frequently for navigational purposes. But, I
> think the general idea is, that you dont have to move the hand away from the
> area which it is on, when you are writing.

... and you can of course use Emacs with a vi key interface (Viper)
which is (according to some people) more efficient ... once you have
learned it of course ... ;-)

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Christian
> Herenz<herenz@physik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Chris Gordon-Smith schrieb:
>>>
>>> Hello All
>>>
>>> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in  
>>> the
>>> Emacs documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc.  
>>> rather
>>> than arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but  
>>> those
>>> arrow keys still seem pretty attractive.

I've been using emacs for less than a year. I feel comfortable with  
python mode, outline mode, dired, org-mode, slime and auctex. And yet,  
the stupid f-b-n-p issue is a constant pain. Why, in an editor that's  
utilized through habit and muscle memory, are the most primary  
navigation keys based on *mnemonic* devices like forward-back-next- 
previous? Why is that necessary? I can open files on remote servers,  
eval defuns, and relocate sub-trees easier than I can move forward  
three words and then move forward another two characters. I'm aware of  
solutions like ergo-movement or whatever, but it messes with the whole  
arrangement of keys and really isn't viable. Only now, after nearly a  
year of use, am I finally getting to the point where it is more  
efficient to reach for f-b-n-p than to reach for the arrow keys.

This is a rant. I have no real point. In the end, it's better to use f- 
b-n-p, but good Lord it takes a long time to get here.

E

>>
>> Yeah... I also tend to use them frequently for navigational  
>> purposes. But, I
>> think the general idea is, that you dont have to move the hand away  
>> from the
>> area which it is on, when you are writing.
>
> ... and you can of course use Emacs with a vi key interface (Viper)
> which is (according to some people) more efficient ... once you have
> learned it of course ... ;-)
>
>

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Xah Lee]

On Jun 7, 9:27 am, Eric Abrahamsen <gir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Christian
> > Herenz<her...@physik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> Chris Gordon-Smith schrieb:
>
> >>> Hello All
>
> >>> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in
> >>> the
> >>> Emacs documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc.
> >>> rather
> >>> than arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but
> >>> those
> >>> arrow keys still seem pretty attractive.
>
> I've been using emacs for less than a year. I feel comfortable with
> python mode, outline mode, dired, org-mode, slime and auctex. And yet,
> the stupid f-b-n-p issue is a constant pain. Why, in an editor that's
> utilized through habit and muscle memory, are the most primary
> navigation keys based on *mnemonic* devices like forward-back-next-
> previous? Why is that necessary? I can open files on remote servers,
> eval defuns, and relocate sub-trees easier than I can move forward
> three words and then move forward another two characters. I'm aware of
> solutions like ergo-movement or whatever, but it messes with the whole
> arrangement of keys and really isn't viable. Only now, after nearly a
> year of use, am I finally getting to the point where it is more
> efficient to reach for f-b-n-p than to reach for the arrow keys.
>
> This is a rant. I have no real point. In the end, it's better to use f-
> b-n-p, but good Lord it takes a long time to get here.

I guess the ergo-movement you are referring to is

• Ergoemacs Keybindings
  http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html

Maybe give it another try? it is meant to fix this emacs problem. Or
tell me what problem you had with you tried to use it.

the reason emacs had the keys it had is largely due to historical
reasons. In particular, the f b n p are due to the about 20 lisp
hackers who already used to that key when emacs just started,
according to the oldest emacs user Daniel Weinreb.

quote:

... At the time Guy Steele put together the Emacs default key
mappings, many people in the target user community (about 20 people at
MIT!) were already using these key bindings.  It would have been hard
to get the new Emacs bindings accepted by the community if they
differed for such basic commands...

—Daniel Weinreb, 2008-06-01, on comp.emacs newsgroup.

See:

• Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful
  http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: Arrow Keys?

[notbob]

Eric Abrahamsen <girzel@gmail.com> writes:


> This is a rant. I have no real point. In the end, it's better to use
> f- 
> b-n-p, but good Lord it takes a long time to get here.

Beats the crap outta changing modes every time one wants to enter or
edit text!

nb   --vi, the heart of evil! 

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

On Jun 8, 2009, at 5:24 AM, notbob@bb.nothome.com wrote:

> Eric Abrahamsen <girzel@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> This is a rant. I have no real point. In the end, it's better to use
>> f-
>> b-n-p, but good Lord it takes a long time to get here.
>
> Beats the crap outta changing modes every time one wants to enter or
> edit text!
>
> nb   --vi, the heart of evil!

Sure, and the point of emacs' customizability is well taken, as  
always. I fooled with changing keys, and with ergo-movement, and felt  
like I didn't know my modes well enough to change something so basic  
without messing up a whole bunch of other stuff. I'd find something  
that felt right, then three days later edit a python file and realize,  
crap, I can't have those keys there. Maybe after another year of use  
I'll know the program well enough to feel comfortable making such  
fundamental rearrangements, but not now. So anyway, the main point  
remains: get to know the defaults, or change them.

E

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-06-08 00:27 (+0800), Eric Abrahamsen wrote:

> I'm aware of solutions like ergo-movement or whatever, but it messes
> with the whole arrangement of keys and really isn't viable.

My ergo-movement-mode changes only cursor movement keys. It overrides
M-jikl and C-M-jl keys and resurrects the overridden keys as shifted
versions. For example, M-k (kill-sentence) becomes M-K.

    http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ergo-movement-mode.el

Re: Arrow Keys?

[John A Pershing Jr]

Eric Abrahamsen <girzel@gmail.com> writes:

> I've been using emacs for less than a year. I feel comfortable with
> python mode, outline mode, dired, org-mode, slime and auctex. And yet,
> the stupid f-b-n-p issue is a constant pain. Why, in an editor that's
> utilized through habit and muscle memory, are the most primary
> navigation keys based on *mnemonic* devices like forward-back-next-
> previous? Why is that necessary?

I don't understand what the problem is, here.  The arrow keys work just
fine, for those of you who don't/can't touch type.  The mouse works just
fine, too.  And, the control-meta-cokebottle keys work just fine for
those of us who *do* touch type.  If you don't like C-f, then don't use
it.  It's as simple as that.

Or, are you saying that you hit these keys by accident?  If so, then
undefine them in your .emacs file.

Now, for the "why":  Emacs is an old editor.  *Very* old.  Dating back
nearly 40 years, when it was implemented as the world's largest TECO
macro, and ran on a DEC-10 mainframe.  Many terminals didn't have arrow
keys, and those that did encoded them (in ASCII) in vendor-unique ways.
The only thing that was known to work were the standard (7-bit) ASCII
characters, with ESC used to add in the META bit.  (I didn't have access
to any of the Knight terminals, which transmitted 12(?)-bit characters,
including a real META bit).  If you had, say, a DEC VT-100 terminal,
then you had to load up the VT100 macro package for the arrow keys to be
recognized.  Most of us simply didn't bother.  Hence, C-f, C-b, C-p, and
C-n.

However, I admit that some of the mnemonics are a bit of a stretch...

  -jp

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-06-12 13:34 (-0400), John A Pershing Jr wrote:

> I don't understand what the problem is, here. The arrow keys work just
> fine, for those of you who don't/can't touch type. The mouse works
> just fine, too. And, the control-meta-cokebottle keys work just fine
> for those of us who *do* touch type. If you don't like C-f, then don't
> use it. It's as simple as that.

I think the point is this:

 1. Arrow keys are quite far away from usual typing positions so arrow
    keys' position is not optimal.

 2. C-fbnp are difficult or painful and certainly not ergonomic so they
    are not optimal either.

 3. By default there are no optimal keys for moving cursor.

And I would agree with that. It is possible to learn and master C-fbnp
keys but they are far from optimal and nice. Fortunately Emacs is
customizable.

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Jeff Clough]

Whether someone else uses the arrow keys to move, or C-f/b/n/p doesn't 
really affect me, but I will say that there is a second Control key on 
your keyboard for a reason.  If you do chording with the opposite hand 
(right Control for f/b and left Control for n/p) than the "ergonomic" 
problem goes away.

Jeff

-- 

Author of the Genesys System
A "free" universal role-playing game.
http://www.chaosphere.com/genesys/

Re: Arrow Keys?

[notbob]

Jeff Clough <jeff@chaosphere.com> writes:


> your keyboard for a reason.  If you do chording with the opposite hand
> (right Control for f/b and left Control for n/p) than the "ergonomic"
> problem goes away.

I guess that's one way to look at it, not overworking either hand.
OTOH (heh...), sometimes it's just handier (damn, can't escape it!) to
be able to use one hand for cursor direction.  That's when I move to
the arrow keys, typically when I'm about the highlight/copy/paste with
the mouse.

BTW, I know about yank, but that cuts text.  Is there a similar
function for just copying text without cutting it?

nb

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-06-13 09:45 (-0600), notbob@bb.nothome.com wrote:

> BTW, I know about yank, but that cuts text.  Is there a similar
> function for just copying text without cutting it?

I'm not sure how yank (C-y) is related to cutting but the basic cut and
copy commands are these:

    C-w = kill-region       ("cut")
    M-w = kill-ring-save    ("copy")

You may want to read these sections from the manual:

    C-h r m Killing RET
    C-h r m Yanking RET

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2009-06-07, Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the Emacs 
> documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather than 
> arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those arrow 
> keys still seem pretty attractive.

   That depends on your typing habits. If you sit at the keyboard with
   your fingers in the home position all the time, then they probably
   are more efficient. Otherwise, probably not.

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Chris Gordon-Smith]

Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-07, Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>> Hello All
>>
>> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the Emacs 
>> documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather than 
>> arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those arrow 
>> keys still seem pretty attractive.
> 
>   That depends on your typing habits. If you sit at the keyboard with
>   your fingers in the home position all the time, then they probably
>   are more efficient. Otherwise, probably not.
> 
Hmm. Well, I probably do. That may be a hard habit to lose. I'll persist 
for a while longer.

Chris Gordon-Smith
www.simsoup.info

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Ian Eure]

On Jun 7, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:

> Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-06-07, Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>>> Hello All
>>>
>>> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in  
>>> the Emacs
>>> documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc.  
>>> rather than
>>> arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those  
>>> arrow
>>> keys still seem pretty attractive.
>>
>>  That depends on your typing habits. If you sit at the keyboard with
>>  your fingers in the home position all the time, then they probably
>>  are more efficient. Otherwise, probably not.
>>
> Hmm. Well, I probably do. That may be a hard habit to lose. I'll  
> persist
> for a while longer.
>
It is a hard habit to lose. I preferred the arrow keys for a very,  
very long time, but recently came around to the C-fbnp bindings. It's  
definitely faster then moving my hand over to the arrow keys, and it  
certainly helps immensely when switching from word or sexp motion to  
character motion.

Ditto C-v / M-v / C-M-v / C-M-S-v for scrolling.

  - Ian

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Davin Pearson]

On Jun 8, 9:31 am, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    That depends on your typing habits. If you sit at the keyboard with
>    your fingers in the home position all the time, then they probably
>    are more efficient. Otherwise, probably not.

I can't stand the default Emacs keybindings.  It is too easy to miss C-
f/C-b/C-n/C-p and press a totally different key.  For this reason I
choose to use the arrow keys.

I have redefined C-f and C-d to find-file because it is used so much.
This proved to be a pain because nearly every major mode needed C-f/C-
d to be rebound.

Isn't the purpose of Emacs to eliminate arguments over keybindings?
Every Emacs user can customise their bindings to their own personal
preferences.

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Davin Pearson <davin.pearson@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help
> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Isn't the purpose of Emacs to eliminate arguments over keybindings?
> Every Emacs user can customise their bindings to their own personal
> preferences.

That's the idea, yes.  But some people tend to argue a lot about the
default settings, for reasons that totally evade me in the context of
Emacs, whose customization features and extensibility are really
limitless.

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Andreas Röhler]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Davin Pearson <davin.pearson@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help
>> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Isn't the purpose of Emacs to eliminate arguments over keybindings?
>> Every Emacs user can customise their bindings to their own personal
>> preferences.
>>     
>
> That's the idea, yes.  But some people tend to argue a lot about the
> default settings, for reasons that totally evade me in the context of
> Emacs, whose customization features and extensibility are really
> limitless.
>
>
>
>   

You are right. Nonetheless, being a beginner, it's just that kind of
question
to pose IMHO.

Below a tiny issue I enjoy from the unlimited, it saves the (rather
laborious) keystrokes
typing in "yes" and "return" afterwards:

(global-set-key [(super a)] '[?y ?e ?s return])

Andreas

Re: Arrow Keys?

[B. T. Raven]

Andreas Röhler wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> From: Davin Pearson <davin.pearson@gmail.com>
>>> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help
>>> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>> Isn't the purpose of Emacs to eliminate arguments over keybindings?
>>> Every Emacs user can customise their bindings to their own personal
>>> preferences.
>>>     
>> That's the idea, yes.  But some people tend to argue a lot about the
>> default settings, for reasons that totally evade me in the context of
>> Emacs, whose customization features and extensibility are really
>> limitless.
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> You are right. Nonetheless, being a beginner, it's just that kind of
> question
> to pose IMHO.
> 
> Below a tiny issue I enjoy from the unlimited, it saves the (rather
> laborious) keystrokes
> typing in "yes" and "return" afterwards:
> 
> (global-set-key [(super a)] '[?y ?e ?s return])
> 
> Andreas

The effect can also be accomplished with

(fset 'yes-or-no-p 'y-or-n-p)
; makes yes-or-no-p an alias for y-or-n-p

which short-circuits the safety of having to type out y e s [ret] but I 
guess it's no more dangerous than your method. A single y or space 
without RET will answer the query in the affirmative.

Ed

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Chris Gordon-Smith]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Davin Pearson <davin.pearson@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help
>> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
>> 
>> Isn't the purpose of Emacs to eliminate arguments over keybindings?
>> Every Emacs user can customise their bindings to their own personal
>> preferences.
> 
> That's the idea, yes.  But some people tend to argue a lot about the
> default settings, for reasons that totally evade me in the context of
> Emacs, whose customization features and extensibility are really
> limitless.
> 
No doubt Emacs is intended to be flexibile, but along with flexibility goes 
the possibility of doing things in a sub-optimal way. The Emacs tutorial 
(C-h t) says:-

"You can use the arrow keys, but it's more efficient to keep your hands in 
the standard position and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n."

Perhaps this is right, perhaps not, but the fact that Emacs gives its users 
a choice does not remove the fact that some ways of doing things are better 
than others.

Chris Gordon-Smith
www.simsoup.info

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Chris Gordon-Smith]

Chris Gordon-Smith <use.address@my.homepage.invalid> wrote:
> Hello All
> 
> I have recently started using Emacs on a regular basis. I read in the Emacs 
> documentation that it is more efficient to use C-N, C-P etc. rather than 
> arrow keys. Is this really true? I'm persisting with it, but those arrow 
> keys still seem pretty attractive.
> 
> Chris Gordon-Smith
> www.simsoup.info

Thanks to all who responded. I think I'll adopt a 'non-purist' attitude and 
use C-N, C-P etc. when convenient and arrow keys otherwise. Going to 
extreme lengths to avoid using the arrow keys could become a distraction. 

Perhaps an expert can type slightly faster using C-N etc., but much of my 
time in front of a keyboard is in any case spent thinking, so any increase 
in typing speed would be marginal.

Chris Gordon-Smith
www.simsoup.info

Re: Arrow Keys?

[Miles Bader]

use.address@my.homepage.invalid (Chris Gordon-Smith) writes:
> Perhaps an expert can type slightly faster using C-N etc., but much
> of my time in front of a keyboard is in any case spent thinking, so
> any increase in typing speed would be marginal.

Note that there are other good reasons besides the "home row
advantage" (though that is quite real) to use the standard Emacs
keybindings.  They represent a sort of "system", and getting used to
the C-f etc help you become familiar with it.

By "system", I mean that e.g., C-f moves forward a character, M-f
moves forward a word, C-M-f moves forward an expression, etc.  By
using C-u prefixes, you can then "amplify" these movements, again with
fairly minimal finger movement (e.g. C-u C-u C-f moves forward 16
characters, etc -- and this is simpler to type than it looks:  it's
really "C- u u f", and the u and f keys are right under your fingers).

Once your fingers start to feel comfortable with this, it _really_
helps make movement fast, easy, and precise.  Then you'll start to
understand why long-term Emacs users consider the arrow keys clumsy
and awkward...

-Miles

-- 
"She looks like the wax version of herself."
     	   	    		   [Comment under a Paris Hilton fashion pic]