Here we go again. Vim vs. Emacs. A decades-old argument that actually doesn't have any merits.<p>Because Vim and Emacs are two distinct categories. The only thing that makes them similar is that they are both based on something. That something is an idea. And not just an ordinary, everyday concept, but an influential, holy grail type of thing.<p>Vi and the concept of the modality is an incredible, powerful, fantastic model.
People who never hardheartedly tried to learn Vi-model just don't get to say anything about it. Can you respect an opinion about CRISPR coming from someone who has no clue about polynucleotide chains and DNA?<p>Yes, Vim is not overly intuitive for a complete beginner. Like many, perhaps most awesome tools, it too has a certain level of sophistication. You cannot enter the Suez or Panama Canal gates' control room and suggest removing all those knobs, switches, buttons, etc., and instead, install one colossal touch screen because that would be "a much more intuitive interface".<p>Vim is hard to learn, but you see, there's usually a strong correlation between something that's not so easy to acquire and simplicity gained later. Conversely, things that are easy to pick up, very often later become cumbersome and annoyingly counter-productive. Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" rhetoric very nicely manifests that.<p>So yes, Vi-model is an incredible idea. Vim, Neovim, Evil, etc., are just implementations of that idea.<p>Now, Emacs is based on another mind-blowing idea. The idea of practical notation for lambda calculus, what is known as Lisp. Lisp, probably can be crowned as the most important idea in computer science. It's just hard to think of something more influential than Lisp.
Emacs is just a practical implementation (and frankly, not the best one) of that idea.<p>Arguing what's better - Emacs or Vim is like debating what was more important in the history of health care - the invention of anesthesia or discovery of penicillin.<p>Both Vim and Emacs are awesome, and one is not better than another. If you can't see that - then probably there's a big hole in your understanding of at least one of the ideas they are based on.