################################################
MEEP Comparison with Other Model Editing Systems
################################################

Since adopting a modal-editing system can be a significant undertaking:
this page aims to differentiate MEEP from other modal editing systems available for Emacs.

*While this document compares MEEP with other systems,
I would like to acknowledge that those systems are much more mature.*

*Furthermore, they have their strengths.
The intent of this page is to help users know if MEEP is something they might wish use,
not to diminish the work of others.*


Comparison with Evil Mode
=========================

**Similarities:**

- Most actions take a similar number of key-strokes.
  it's possible to change a word, change a *whole* word, change 3 whole words... etc.

- Persistent Selection.

  In both cases selection is explicitly enabled and disabled,
  the selection (visual) state can have it's own key-map.

- "repeat" functionality.

  MEEP's repeat is similar to evil-modes where it's possible to repeat an insertion or a change
  which may be made up of multiple key-strokes.

**Differences:**

- Order of Motion / Action

  With VIM the motion is performed after a key to perform the action.
  With MEEP the motion is performed first, see the overview for details.

- Key-map Layout

  VIM uses mnemonics for key-binding locations (I for Insert, C for change .. etc),
  where as MEEP uses the physical location on the keyboard.

  This allows key binding locations to be optimized for:

  - Distribute actions between the left and right hand.
  - Move frequently used actions to the home row.
  - Order sequential actions to take advantage of "finger roll".

  - Bindings for insert mode.

    VIM uses many keys to enter insert mode
    (``i``, ``a``, ``s``, ``o``) all enter insert mode in slightly different ways.
    By comparison, MEEP uses:

    - A key to enter insert mode.
    - A "leader" key with insertions placed based on ``HJKL`` directions.


Comparison with Meow
====================

In many ways, MEEP is quite similar to Meow.

**Similarities:**

- Similar goal & approach:
  To provide a modal editing system that fits in with Emacs built-in behavior
  instead of attempting to apply more rigid control over behavior.

- The user is expected to set their own key-map,
  with suggested default provided.

- Support for a Key-Pad to support key binding sequences more easily.

- The default key-map mainly uses alphanumeric keys with Shift,
  none of the bindings use Control or Alt, allowing Emacs default bindings to co-exist.

**Differences:**

- Persistent Selection

  In Meow holding shift with a motion selects text and moving the cursor can drop the selection.
  With MEEP selection is explicitly enabled & disabled.

  This has the implications that Shift can be used to map additional actions,
  and motions without Shift held don't "drop" the selection.

- Macros/Repeating Actions

  In Meow beacon-mode to apply an action in multiple places
  (similar to multiple cursors).

  By comparison, MEEP relies on repeating the last edit,
  where more involved multi-step edits require regular macro record & replay.

- Visual Feedback

  Meow shows overlays after cursor motion,
  to indicate the number that can be used to extend the motion.

  MEEP by comparison doesn't use any visual feedback
  *although it could be optionally supported*.

- Search

  Meow implements it's own "visit" functionality,
  MEEP uses ISearch.

- Key-bindings

  Meow makes use of re-mapping key-strokes to Emacs default bindings.
  This can cause problems if users have disabled or remapped those bindings.

  MEEP by comparison uses a key-map without depending on other bindings.

- Key-map Layout

  - Since Shift is not used for selection,
    holding shift can be used for other bindings.

  - MEEP doesn't use the SpaceBar in the default key-map.

    The SpaceBar can be used by the user as a leader key,
    as is common practice for VIM/EvilMode.