On Jun 13, 6:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Even if we accept that Dvorak is an optimization, it's a micro- > optimization. +1 Dvorak -- like qwerty and any other keyboard layout -- assumes the computer is a typewriter. This means in effect at least two constraints, necessary for the typewriter but not for the computer: a. The typist can type only 1 key at a time b. One (key)stroke generates exactly 1 letter Exceptions to <a> are Shift (Ctrl) etc but clearly in running use they are the exception not the rule. > Where speed really is vital, such as for court stenographers, special > mechanical > shorthand machines such as stenotypes are used, costing thousands of dollars > but allowing > the typist to reach speeds of over 300 wpm. Yes, instruments like stenotypes speed up typing by unassuming <a> Likewise pianists can be said (and seen) to do more at the piano than typists at a computer because chords are part of the 'allowed language'. Assumption <b> likewise is unnecessarily restrictive on a computer. Think of all the 'abbrev/snippet/shortform/template' systems like yasnippet, textmate-snippets, emacs/vi abbrevs etc. For ordinary English there are things like keyscript http://www.freewebs.com/cassyjanek For example the most common words (estimated to be around 40% of English) are shortformed as: b = but c = with d = had e = this f = of g = that h = the j = which n = and ...etc etc upto z = was then common phrases able to = cb had been = dn do not = dx did not = ex does not = dsx etc Clearly, for programmers this is unlikely to be much use -- programming languages are not English. But but it is certainly an open question whether if the repeating patterns in programming languages are captured into some system, the resulting benefit would be a mere micro-optimization or something more significant. I have seen some good programmers swear by emacs-yasnippets, textmate-snippets etc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
