Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Mar 2012 19:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 510167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: hjkl still ergonomic
by Anachronda on Sat 10th Mar 2012 00:43
in reply to "RE: hjkl still ergonomic"
RE[3]: hjkl still ergonomic
by MacTO on Sat 10th Mar 2012 02:59
in reply to "RE[2]: hjkl still ergonomic"
RE[2]: hjkl still ergonomic
by ctl_alt_del on Sat 10th Mar 2012 19:37
in reply to "RE: hjkl still ergonomic"
I believe that the non-printing control codes (C0 codes) have a history dating back to the 1870's. First with the Baudot Code (circa 1870), to the Murray Code (circa 1900), to ITA-2 (circa 1930), to ASCII and ANSI variants now used. These were established for use with teleprinters to replace telegraph/Morse Code type transmissions.
So I would have to agree that this h-j-k-l layout of CO codes was indeed a intentional design. A "teletype" kind of functionality built into early dumb terminals and coded into vi and inherited by vim.




Member since:
2006-09-21
I'll go a step further and claim that the ASCII control codes explanation just doesn't cut it.
Think of it this way: these control codes are grouped, ASCII goes in alphabetical order, and QWERTY keyboards are not in alphabetical order. That leaves two options: ASCII was designed with this function in mind, or we have a bit of a coincidence on our hands. There are only two groups of letters that follow this linear pattern after all (hjkl, and dfgh) and many other scenarios where the movement keys would have been mapped all over the keyboard.