Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[don provan <dprovan@comcast.net>]

Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> writes:

> OK, the distance from the home row is shorter, but I still don't think
> you can conclude that it is more efficient. For example, C-f require
> "two" (or one, or one and a half if you want) keypresses while the
> arrow keys require only single keypresses.

But when you advance to word movement, they both require two keys
again, but if you use the arrow keys, you're guaranteed those two keys
will require two hands.

> Also, can you seriously say that, when doing complicated cursor
> movements (imagine navigating around in a crossword or minesweeper
> game or similar "grid2), that C-f, C-b, C-n and C-p allows for quicker
> movement? If so, I think you are an alien... :)

C-u<Arrow> is efficient? When you start talking about complicated
cursor movements, I immediately assume I'm going to be quite
frequently using C-u, C-uC-u, and even C-u<number>, all of which are
going to be objectively clumsy when combined with arrow keys.

> I agree that for casual cursor movement *while typing text*, it is
> faster to use C-f et al, but I still don't like the "more efficient"
> statement as I do not find it to be true. Also, the mnemonics (f =
> forward, b = back, n = next, p = previous) suggest that the commands was
> put on those keys not for quick navigation bur for easy learning, in a
> time where the arrows were not present on all keyboards.

There's no denying the history, particularly when, as in my case, you
personally experienced it. It is, in fact, pure luck of history that
emacs has cursor movement defined in a way that allows for much more
efficient cursor movement than standard word processors and Windows
text editors.

> I use both, depending on the situation.

Sure, we all do. And I don't mind the description being changed to
make it a little less definitive. At the same time, it doesn't take
too many such concessions before you've admitted that there's no
reason to switch to Emacs if you're already used to NotePad as an
editor. The reasons Emacs is better than Word or NotePad are *all*
debatable in this way. That doesn't mean we should start advertising
Emacs as "no worse that NotePad!" The fact that the editor is designed
to be driven with the hands at the home position is a *huge* win that
I, for one, would not want to dilute by saying that the arrow keys are
just as good as C-f, C-b, C-n, and C-p.

-don provan