-2

These arguments here:

Should questions about how to use vi mode in bash be on-topic?

speak about the idea that if we get questions regarding vi-modes, it is a slippery slope, and we will end up answering all questions since the dawn of man that had even the faintest reminiscence of vi-esque keybindings in Fakevim, Neovim, Vrapper, etc.

Can't we just limit the scope to vi-specific shell-modes, given their universality on operating systems, and that they are extremely common within the vi paradigm?

Why do we have to make this argument that if we allow shell-mode questions, we have to include all questions about all programs with vi keybindings?

| |
  • 1
    Why? I don't see the difference between vi mode in bash and vi keybindings in $RANDOM_PROGRAM. – muru Aug 19 '16 at 21:17
  • A shell is usually required to access vim, and it's VI mode is universal given the limited number of shells in use. It is also widely used and usable by everyone. A Random Program or Plugin for Firefox giving vim-like functionality is far more exclusive. This is the qualitative difference. – Akiva Aug 19 '16 at 21:21
  • A shell, yes. A command line shell, not necessarily. Graphical shells do just fine with Windows and Macs, and other systems with gvim. Sorry, but that's not a qualitative difference. That's certainly a quantitative difference. – muru Aug 19 '16 at 21:23
  • It is qualitative by your own admission; they require shells. Fakevim does not require a shell, graphical or commandline. However I predict I will not win this argument, nor should I, due to the consensus here, respectfully. Part of the motivation is that I feared that this SE would be too limited in scope, and would not have enough questions. That is intuition as I have not looked into it, and perhaps that is exactly what this SE needs anyway, that is, Limited Scope. In any case, thanks for your response. – Akiva Aug 19 '16 at 21:30
  • I subscribe to the answer posted by @Carpetsmoker♦ in the thread you mention: vi mode in readline is not an editor. It just emulates a few key bindings of vi. It isn't even remotely relevant to Vim users, and neither is Vim remotely relevant to readline users. My 0.02 EUR. – Sato Katsura Aug 20 '16 at 11:54
5

I don't feel strongly either way, personally, but there's an argument to be made that moving in the direction of allowing things (even one subset of things) that have vim emulation starts to move in the direction of further overlap with existing sites like SuperUser.

"Duplicates existing sites" on the SE network was a big reason that the Vim SE proposal failed two or three times before it finally got let through.

| |
  • didn't consider that point of view. Makes more sense now. – Akiva Aug 22 '16 at 0:02
6

Both a violin and a guitar use some of the same acoustics principles and techniques, but guitar players can't just pick up a violin and start playing it (or vice versa). The guitar experience may give an "edge", but in the end it's a different skill.

And it's the same with Vi and Vi-like bindings in bash. People who come to this site are experts (or at least proficient) with Vi, and not necessarily with bash, Vimperator, or anything else. It's simply a different skill and interest.

From the comments:

A shell is usually required to access vim, and it's VI mode is universal given the limited number of shells in use. It is also widely used and usable by everyone. A Random Program or Plugin for Firefox giving vim-like functionality is far more exclusive. This is the qualitative difference.

I'm not sure if this is a very good argument. A keyboard, monitor, CPU, power supply, Operating System, the C standard library, and much more is required to "access Vim"; none of which is even remotely on-topic on this site ;-)

Part of the motivation is that I feared that this SE would be too limited in scope, and would not have enough questions.

Beta sites don't get closed for "not enough questions". There are some sites that have been in existence for much longer with a lot fewer questions. As long as we make sure the quality stays reasonable we should be fine.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .