Caleb Berent

Professor Bryan

ENC1102H

February 11th, 2024

Annotated Bibliography

Thesis / Research Question:

How do modal text editors like Vi, Vim and NeoVim use their different modes to influence

programmer efficiency as well as maintain relevance amidst more modern competition?

Sources:

1. Coimbra of Oliveira, B., and J. D. Zuchi. “EFCIENCE IN THE WRITTEN OF SOFTWARE

WITH THE VIM.” Journal of Technology Interface, vol. 17, on December 2, 2020, p. 386-97,

doi:10.31510/infa.v172.1066.

◦ This study, published in 2020, was focused specifically on the efficiency gained by using

Vim and other modal editors. It included a lot of great sources that are useful for my

research as well as quantitative data. The study concluded that even though Vim has a

steeper learning curve, its high performance and efficiency makes automating repetitive

tasks easier and faster than alternatives despite its age. One interesting quantitative test the

authors performed was how fast someone in different editors could change various numbers

in a text file. Out of 5 subjects, 4 used VSCode and had times ranging from 9 to 32 seconds

while the sole Vim user only took 8. I would probably do a similar test on my own given

how their study only had a limited number of subjects. This study also lacks qualitative data

except from other outside sources. Figure one in this study is also a great depiction of the

raw data given by the Stack Overflow 2017 Developer Survey relating the years spent

programming of a developer to text editor usage. I will definitely be referencing this graph
 in my research. Overall I thought this study was going to conflict with my research but due

to the lack of depth in their data I believe I will be able to expand on their thesis with more

data than they acquired.

2. “Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2017.” Stack Overflow,

insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017. Accessed 11 Feb. 2024.

◦ Stack Overflow, a forum for programmers and developers, conducts yearly surveys among

its users on a variety of topics. One particularly interesting statistic for me is the most

popular developer environments by occupation. These statistics showed that despite Vim’s

age it is widely popular amongst many different types of developers with its percentage of

popularity never going below 21%. For Web Developers it had a percentage of 27.1%

coming in fourth, for Desktop Developers 21.2% coming in fifth, for System Admins /

DevOps it was 42.1% taking first place on the list, and for Data Scientists and Engineers

34.0% coming in third. This shows that overall Vim is widely popular despite being created

in 1992 as well as that its features make it a great choice for certain niches of developers.

On a personal note, I use vim and its derivatives constantly when editing and manipulating

various configuration files and bash scripts on my computer and can therefore easily see

why it is favorably amongst System Admins and DevOps. While this source is not a peer

reviewed study, I reference this source in my explanation for a lot of my other sources and

so that is why I included it here.

3. Embley, David W., and George Nagy. “Behavioral aspects of text editors.” ACM Computing

Surveys, vol. 13, no. 1, Mar. 1981, pp. 33–70, https://doi.org/10.1145/356835.356838.

◦ This study, while dated, is a great breakdown of the peak efficiency of text editors design.

The authors of this study use both theoretical models and experimental results to study the

behavior of using text editors. It studies text editors in a variety of contexts such as
 comparing the use of some text editors for code development and the use of others for the

production of other types of literature. Some interesting points I found:

1. Between 25-50% of the time while doing a task was spent on “unpredictable activities”

2. Variations in computer lag were more impactful to the user than the lag itself

3. Command options improve expert performance but degrade beginner performance

(particularly relevant to vim)

4. The authors concluded that terminal design was well understood and did not have

significant room to improve. I believe they were correct given how vim was originally

created in 1991 and has not radically changed since then despite continued popularity.

◦ Overall, this source provides very useful qualitative information I can use and expand upon

not only just on the history and design of vim but also how it differs from other text editors

that are meant for different purposes. I can also use this source to more easily describe how

the designs of different text editors influence its users and its uses.

4. Fabbri, Renato. “An anthropological account of the Vim text editor: features and tweaks after

10 years of usage.” arXiv, 2017, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1712.06933

◦ This study, also Brazilian in origin, is purely qualitative and focuses on the author’s

experience and growth after using Vim for over 10 years. The author talks mainly about his

own personal experience while detailing how Vim’s complexity positively impacts his

performance and the efficiency of his work. He has personally used vim to write many

different types of software in many languages including Python, JavaScript, C++, Latex,

HTML, RDF, Make and many other markup languages. In addition, the author wrote this

source so that it could be a compendium of common tips and commands vim users, both

beginners and experienced users, could learn from. This study is useful for me because it
 gives qualitative data from an experienced Vim user while also providing a guide for

complex Vim commands and tricks that I will be able to reference in my research as well as

utilize in any potential trials and experiments. This source also relates to my sixth source by

describing an proficient user’s experience with vim. Together I can use this and my sixth

source to talk about experienced user’s efficiency with Vim and other text editors. A down

side of this source is that it is purely qualitative but I can make up for that in other sources.

5. Lockridge, Tim, and Derek Van Ittersum. Writing Workflows: Beyond Word Processing. 2020,

https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11657120.\

◦ In this source, the authors discuss the importance and use of tools in writing. Chapter 3

focuses on “workflow mapping” and how writers can use this concept to understand how

their writing tools of choice have evolved over time and what new tools they can

incorporate into their writing. The authors go on to argue that the very tools we use to write

influence our thinking and what we write. This source is useful to my research because I can

use the concept of “workflow mapping” to describe the not only the differences in different

text editors but also how they shape the user. For example, I can show that not only does

vim offer extensive capabilities in the command line but also how its users then use it to

prioritize certain types of programming and file editing. This also ties into my second

source which was the 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey which showed that system

admins and DevOps prefer vim much more than other types of programmers. While it is not

directly related to programming and text editing, this source still provides useful context to

the kinds of arguments I am going to be making. This sources novelty also means it is

applicable to modern text editors as well like VSCode.

6. Rosson, Mary Beth. “Patterns of Experience in Text Editing.” CHI ’83: Proceedings of the

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Dec. 1983,

https://doi.org/10.1145/800045.801604.

◦ This paper was presented at the SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on Computer-Interface

Interaction; part of ACM(Association for Computing Machinery)) Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems in December, 1983. In this paper, the author explores

whether ones experience with a certain software correlates to ones efficiency with that

software. She concluded that while some users do tend towards maximum efficiency, others

develop habits that cause them to use the software in a non-optimal way. The author used

both observational studies and interviews with users to arrive at her conclusion. The big

takeaway from this for me is that while developers of text editors like vim design their

programs with maximum efficiency in mind, not all users will be able to make use that

efficiency even with extensive experience and time. This relates to my other sources in

describing how efficiency with vim is not perfect for all users and how some users should

consider alternate writing workflows that might better suite their tendancies. Just like my

third source, this paper is old enough that it would not be considered relevant however again

due to vim’s age and continued popularity I believe it is still a very acceptable source for my

research.