Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Most Pressed Keys and Programming Syntaxes (mahdiyusuf.com)
152 points by deniszgonjanin on Sept 8, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 93 comments



I photoshopped this really quick for to compare ruby on Dvorak and Qwerty. https://img.skitch.com/20110908-q24qths9k4u6438wpd989qreci.j...


Nice. This is the most interesting question about Dvorak, to me.

Everyone I know who recommends Dvorak is a programmer. And I'm more than content with my comfort and speed typing English; the pain of slowing down to type brackets all the time when programming is more of a pain point for me.

So with this in mind, it's interesting to note that Dvorak has moved the quote key to a slightly less favourable location, and basically banished paren/bracket. Not a solution for my pain point!


I personally use a variant of Programmer’s Dvorak. Brackets and various symbols are placed where you usually see numbers, while you have to press shift to access numbers. I think that on a proper Programmer’s Dvorak Caps Lock should cause shift to be in effect on the numbers/symbols buttons.


Don'tcha know Colemak is the latest craze?


it'd be interesting to see these heatmaps in some sort of normalized way. for example, 'e' is the most common letter in english, so its the most commonly used letter in these programming languages. it'd be very interesting to see, for example, this heatmap with the intensities divided by each letter's frequency of use in the English language, or across a large set of data including a lot of different programming languages


Just did it for 28000 C files. Here's the results:

    a  0.772163
    b  1.2679
    c  1.78209
    d  1.1195
    e  0.881398
    f  1.47252
    g  0.924242
    h  0.358954
    i  1.06756
    j  0.835313
    k  1.41458
    l  0.981729
    m  1.08955
    n  0.9156
    o  0.73849
    p  1.74468
    q  4.2497
    r  1.21577
    s  1.05023
    t  1.03627
    u  1.2967
    v  1.77662
    w  0.396003
    x  13.7292
    y  0.47566
    z  3.78748
The numbers are (relative frequency in C) / (relative frequency in English). So "b" is slightly more common in C than English, but "w" is a lot more common in English than C.

The raw counts for symbol characters:

    _  22890057
    ,  10895692
    )  10749798
    (  10745839
    *  9211904
    ;  8187969
    -  6628768
    =  5878296
    >  4428291
    /  3468260
    .  3011078
    {  2212412
    }  2211783
    "  2120264
    &  1647188
    :  1032587
    +  962554
    #  909859
    [  889538
    ]  888722
    <  839910
    |  643903
    %  583092
    !  561462
    \  540456
    '  454201
    @  131199
    ?  112488
    ~  84629
    ^  19064
    $  17922
    `  7272
    [space] 74199965


What would be interesting here would be a difference analysis or regression giving the preference for any given key in a given language. E.g.: '|' is highly predictive of shell, '$' of perl, '()' for lisp. Might be fun to do in R.


I really need to do reading and research on this, but I'm pretty sure that's what Hidden Markov Models are for. You could watch a webpage go from HTML to javascript and back!


Could I ask for one more data: the total number of characters and maybe lines? That way symbol/alpha/line ratios could be compared to other languages.


Yeah, when I get a chance I'll gather together some stats on all the languages I have data on (about 40).

Finder reports 630,942,867 bytes for the whole directory. Assuming most files will be plain ASCII, that should give a good approximation for the total number of characters.


Based on those numbers I gathered some stats about keyboard layouts:

* 18% of all characters are symbols, 12% are spaces and 70% are alphabetic

* 20% of all non-space characters are symbols and 80% are alphabetic.

* US kb layout users need to use shift for 64% of symbols

* Finnish/Swedish kb layout users need to use shift for 73% of symbols and AltGr for 7% of symbols.

* Fi/Swe layout users thus need to use 25% more modifer keys for symbols.

Conclusion: Fi/Swe layout sucks.

edit: https://gist.github.com/1205728 python script used to get these numbers (percentages calculated with OOo Calc).


Do you know why you have slightly different numbers of (){}[] characters? In C or C++ shouldn't those all be paired up to match?


It can probably be accounted for by comments (e.g. people sometimes comment out half a block). Although the comments should be left out, so as not to mix the C and the English.


Also string and character literals. It's common to write something like

    if (c == '{')
and not need to test for the matching one.


Heatmap for symbols only: http://i.imgur.com/yc6fe.png


For this reason, I think it would have been more interesting to ignore the alphabet keys and just heatmap the rest.


But then you lose the impact of the entire set of reserved words. At the point of ignoring the entire alphabet, you're looking at developer preferences for spacing and operators. Might be a nice sidebar to the existing heat maps.


  > you're looking at developer preferences for spacing
  > and operators
Not really. For example, in languages that use $ (e.g. Perl, PHP) to denote a variable, that's not developer preference. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more operators being used in Ruby. Though I'm not a Ruby programmer, it does not look as devoid of punctuation characters as the heatmap suggests.


What would a programming language look like if it was optimized so its reserved keywords used mostly home row letters (and, in Unix tradition, preferably alternated left/right hands) and operators without shifting? This would be tough, since the home row only has one vowel: a.


I was wondering the same thing and noticed that the vowels almost always feature in the top 10 and DVORAK has them all in one hand. yay..Infact, in a very casual observation, i think only 'r' seems to be the letter out of DVORAK layout.. I looked across languages though. Guess this makes me a DVORAK evangelist.:-) And to complete that image i will add this DVzine link.http://www.dvzine.org/



Except for Lisp, of course, where ( and ) are more common than e.


This is not true. See my other comment on this thread. Dominance of ( ) only reflects a particular coder's naming convention.


It's interesting to note that a big reason ( ) dominate in Lisp here is that pg adopts the FP habit of short var names. If anything this is probably just a measure of the tendency to use long vs short name - mainstream OO practice encourages the former. It would be interesting to rerun the heatmap for Lisp with a typical CLOS program. I think you'll find that ( ) no longer dominate.

EDIT: And in fact here's a heatmap of core.logic (1K LOC) which is fairly OO-ish in its design - http://twitpic.com/6hwj88. ( ) are strong but do not dominate everything.

UPDATE: And here's a 1.4K LOC Clojure program, core.match http://twitpic.com/6hwo8w/full. ( ) again do not dominate.


This just graphically displays what I whine about most of the time. Why does my pinky has to do most the work? My pinky is pretty short and all the pinky movements are awkward. It considerably slows down my code typing speed.

I wonder If there would be another keyboard layout specially made for programmers. If you look at it you'll see that most of it has a similar pattern.


It is funny that you should mention it, because I have spent a lot of time finding keyboard layouts more suitable for programing.

In the end I settled on the programmer dvorak layout. It is basically a standard dvorak keyboard but with the special keys you need to program moved to easier locations (and the dvorak keyboard itself uses the homerow much more efficiently, so there is much less strain on your fingers and your wrists).


I have thought about switching to Dvorak, it's hard to find from where I live. I'd love to know what model or brand you settled for.


If you mean buying a hardware keyboard with dvorak letters, then don't. If you learn to touch type (and there's no point switching to Dvorak if you don't intend to) then you don't need to look at your keyboard, indeed being able to will only teach you bad habits.

Print a paper copy of the key layout to pin next to your monitor when starting out and use a typing tutor like gtypist to train yourself instead.


I have no problem typing without looking. Problem as I mentioned above, it is difficult to type with my pinky. It is kind of short (Not oddly short, just that I have shorter fingers than average) and it's awkward. That's what slows me down.

So I'm looking for a layout which makes my other fingers work more.


It sounds like a smaller and/or curved keyboard might be a physical alternative, rather than learn a new layout e.g. the expensive Kinesis contoured devices.

http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/contoured.htm


Funny you mention the Kinesis, which can switch between qwerty and dvorak with a keypress, without you having to consult the OS about it. (great if you can't configure the computer you're using)


I didn't by a physical keyboard as such, any operating system allows you to change the layout and I just did that.

You can print the layout out on a piece of paper until you have learned them but if you plan on looking at the keyboard when you type you are not going to benefit from a dvorak keyboard.

If you do deciede to learn it, just know that it is totally worth it - your hands will thank you.


I wrote the Dvorak letters on my keyboard with a marker and by the time it wore off each key I knew what that key was. It took a couple of weeks.


>> Why does my pinky has to do most the work?

Same thing happens with the saxophone keywork. It seems that pinkies get to handle all the stuff that was not included in the original spec.

Oh, you want to add a shift key? Let the pinky handle it. A C# key? No problem, we can fit it in the pinky cluster.



My experience with Lisp is minimal, and I'm a Vim guy, so I may be totally wrong about this, but...

Doen't nearly all serious Lisp developers use Emacs? And doesn't Emacs have piles of shortcuts for wrapping/unwrapping/manipulating s-expressions? I'd imagine that the resulting number of parens is wildly different than the number originally typed.

Can any experienced Lispers comment on this? Where can I find a cheat sheet of such shortcuts?


Not an experienced Lisper, but yes, you're right. If you made heatmaps of the original keystrokes, for a Lisper using Paredit, there would likely be a decent highlight on the open paren but almost nothing on the close, as Paredit inserts parens in pairs. Hitting ( inserts ().

I don't think Paredit isn't included in Emacs, but here's the relavent page on the Emacs Wiki: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ParEdit and here's a cheatsheet: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/PareditCheatsheet

There's also something similar for Vim, or at least something bundled with slimv, which is more than just Paredit (supporting something like SLIME) http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2531


Most Emacs lispers turn on Paredit after a little while. The major win there is never having invalid structure to your code, but there is the handy side-effect of never having to type a closing paren: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/PareditCheatsheet

Note the images in the article are done by static analysis of text files, which is very different from measuring what people actually type.


The "-" key isn't even lukewarm which seems odd to me given what little I know about lisp.


I thought that to, until I saw the note saying Paul Graham wrote it. Arc is noticeably terse, and avoids the use of - key wherever possible.


Ah! That explains it; thanks!


What corpus did you use to generate that?


I looked at the heatmaps, then looked at my keyboard. The keys with rubbed out labels nearly match his findings 100%. My 'N' isn't (only because the key is slightly larger than my other keys). Other than that, he is spot on.


Interesting thought about the labels. Mine mostly do not match.

In fact, on my keyboard, N is the most-obliterated key label, followed by MAD<. Also damaged: GHSECV. I think I can blame ASD on games, and E should be obvious. So why are CVNM< so very heavily worn? My best guess is that the labels are on the upper section of the keys, which is presumably the laziest part of the key for my fingers to reach?


I'm curious, why do you have a large N key?


Ergonomic style split keyboard, I'm guessing?

http://www.compkeyboard.com/uploadpic/Microsoft%20Natural%20...


Yeah, that's the one. I use this for my office keyboard and a Logitech G510 at home.


Clearly ObjC programmers are the only ones, who comment their code responsibly.


I imagine this comes from the fact that: 1. ObjC is only used on Apple's platforms (and the less popular GNUStep). 2. You'll have to use Xcode to write for these platforms (less popular alternatives don't add up here). 3. Xcode automatically inserts 7 lines of comments with // at the top of every file. Two files per class, 28 /'s per class.


(or have to ;) )


If you code responsibly in ObjC there's no need to write comments. Therefore, if someone "has to" comment ObjC code there's something wrong with their practices.

The same holds for almost any language, but in ObjC that's just natural.


Would like to see a Dvorak version of this.


Interesting to note the difference between C and C++ with regards to the '*' and '&' keys.

I know there is a lot of raw pointer and address usage in C, but I'm surprised at how little these keys show up in C++.

It's good to see that people are taking advantage of smart pointers ;)

(It's subtle though, so I could be reading too much into it).


Seems odd that < and > are said to be used more in C than in C++ (templates).


4 of my haskell files put into heatmap. One of them is an applicative-functor-style use of attoparsec, which tends to have more punctuation than normal haskell code. Even with the frequent use of :'s, $'s and ()'s, the alphanumeric keystrokes dominate the input.

http://fayr.am/9xkE

You can compare this to the Lorum Ipsum text map and see its only slightly different: http://fayr.am/9yk6

I dunno what that means or what sort of value judgements it drives, but it's pretty different from the other heatmaps.


And on Dvorak, all of the yellow letters except the "R" are on the home row.... (R is on the O.)


This really needs to take into account modifier keys (in particular, shift).


Whitespace hasn’t been taken into consideration (tabs and spaces) which would have been a cool thing to see.

I think if that was included this would be a lot more useful. Is there a reason it wasn't?


Different editors take different amounts of effort to insert whitespace.


Still without whitespaces, i have to look at the python heatmap a little differently..


The javascript image shows limited to no usage on the $ key, Doesn't say a lot for jQuery usage.


In the codebase here we use 'jQuery' instead of '$'.


Ditto. If you pull in multiple plugins or additional frameworks (for some reason, we mix YUI with jquery), the $() notation can become broken, and you have to explicitly call jQuery().


Unless you put all your code in a big closure to make a correct $ in function scope:

  (function ($)
  {
  
  }) (jQuery);


The article mentions that "the heat map does miss out on things like shift and caps. ex. in perl with the dollar sign. ($)".


Yeah, but the $ is shown as frequently-pressed in the Perl heatmap, so that must not be what he means.


Here's one for Smalltalk. It's based on my .changes file - about 200K LOC, with all the lines containing '----' and $! removed. What's left is, I think, stuff that actually got typed into a browser.

You can definitely see $:, but otherwise it looks pretty much like English.


Has anyone done this for programmer Dvorak yet? I guess I'm just looking for validation..


If anyone cares: I just added the DVORAK keyboard layout to the keyboard heatmap and open sourced the code. Here is the repo URL: https://github.com/pa7/Keyboard-Heatmap


apropos of the brainfuck reference earlier today, here is a brainfuck interpreter, written in brainfuck, visualized through the keyboard heatmap.

http://i.imgur.com/lSDYJ.jpg


Just to drive the point home, Clojure's core.clj is 6,500+ lines of Lisp, funny enough, parens do not dominate - http://twitpic.com/6hwt28/full.


Well, there is a very good reason for this: Clojure tries to reduce the number of parentheses by substituting other characters, namely square brackets []. For example:

    ; Common Lisp
    (defun add (x y) (+ x y))
    ; Scheme
    (define (add x y) (+ x y))
    ; Clojure
    (defn add [x y] (+ x y))
Also, Clojure eliminates some parentheses that are used in other Lisps:

    ; Common Lisp and Scheme
    (cond ((> x 0) 1)
          ((= x 0) 0)
          (t -1))
    ; Clojure
    (cond (> x 0) 1
          (= x 0) 0
          :else -1)


The title is misleading. They just extracted character frequencies from source files which fail to capture 'Delete', 'Shift', 'Ctrl', 'Alt', etc keys.

Even has Paul Graham name at the end, as if 'Look, this is totally legit!'


Well, Ctrl and Alt aren't related to the programming language (more the editor or OS) and neither is Delete.

Shift is, but that could have (should have IMO) been extracted from the character frequencies in the source files...


Of course there's also the missing shortcut keys. For example, Java projects using an IDE would probably have crtl-space be the most frequently pressed keys (autocomplete).


The problem with this is that you can't tell the difference between numerals and symbols or even worse between two symbols in the same key (such as '_' and '-').


Interesting. It seems strange that Javascript and Ruby seem to use 'r' significantly less than other languages. I have no idea why that would be.


It appears that it just scans source files, not actual key presses. I barely touch the parenthesis keys when programming Lisp for example.


Perl programmers do seem to comment a lot... the "#" looks almost as heavily used as the "$", which is mandatory for variables.


In reality though enclosing glyphs will not be very well balanced. Opening brackets will be typed more than closing brackets.


vim and emacs would be fun too :oP


based on my visual observation, apart from lisp, python seems to skew furthest away from average. Its heatmap is much cooler, with less extremes. I wonder why.


I'd love to see a keyboard layout based on data like this.


It already exists in terms of a more logical layout for faster typing of many latin-based languages. Instead of QUERTY keyboard, it's called the Dvorak layout and is really common in certain circles and places - I believe that in OS X you can switch to this alternative layout pretty easily if you're interested in learning a faster way of typing. More info here: http://atmac.org/dvorak-keyboard-layout-switching


There's also some programmer versions of Dvorak, that make the punctuation more accessible too (by demoting numerals to needing the shift-key to be held):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard#Prog...

Just as Dvorak was based on letter usage, this is based on examining large bodies of code just like the heatmaps in the OP.


It is a bit more than just switching the keys and numbers around - it uses the information from the code it examined to intelligently put the special chars that are used most often were they are easiest to access.

And yes if you wonder, it is awesome to use.


I bet the backspace key is used the most.


time for a programmer keyboard layout? "ASERTNIOL" in the middle line would be good for several langs


The most pressed keys are ⌘ (or CTRL), C, and V.


Doesn't PHP use a colon at the end of every line? WTF?


No.

It uses a semicolon to delimit statements within blocks, but (afaik) placing each statement inside its own <?php ... ?> tag would be valid.

There's also the alternative syntax[1], which is mostly used for templating these days, which looks like

    <?php if ($foo): ?>
     ... html ...
    <?php endif; ?>
and is probably the only place other than a ternary operator that might conceivably end a line with a colon.

[1] http://php.net/manual/en/control-structures.alternative-synt...


but the <?php ?> don't seem to be used too much on this heatmap.


As php code gets more structured, its moving towards MVC frameworks where php tags are used sparingly in the views. (they are a fast way to make spaghetti code)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: