Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve theDvorak Layout?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Xah Lee, Jun 11, 2011.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    (a lil weekend distraction from comp lang!)

    in recent years, there came this Colemak layout. The guy who created
    it, Colemak, has a site, and aggressively market his layout. It's in
    linuxes distro by default, and has become somewhat popular.

    I remember first discovering it perhaps in 2007. Me, being a Dvorak
    typist since 1994, am curious on what he has to say about comparison.
    I recall, i was offended seeing how he paints a bias in peddling his
    creation.

    So, here, let me repaint his bias. Here it is, and judge for yourself.

    〈Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the
    Dvorak Layout?〉
    http://xahlee.org/kbd/dvorak_vs_colemak.html

    here's a interesting excerpt:
    --------------------------------------------

    Just How Much Do You Type?

    Many programers all claim to type 8 or 10 hours a day. They may be
    sitting in front of the computer all day, but the time their fingers
    actually dance on keyboard is probably less than 1 hour per day.

    Contrast data-entry clerks. They are the real typists. Their fingers
    actually type, continuously, for perhaps 6 hours per day.

    It is important get a sense of how much you actually type. This you
    can do by logging you keystrokes using a software.

    Let's assume a pro typist sustain at 60 wpm. 60 wpm is 300 strokes per
    min, or 18k per hour. Suppose she works 8 hours a day, and assume just
    3 hours actually typing. 18k × 3 = 54k chars per day. With this
    figure, you can get a sense of how many “hours†you actually type per
    day.

    I sit in front of computer on average 13 hours per day for the past
    several years. I program and write several blogs. My actual typing is
    probably double or triple of average day-job programers. From my emacs
    command frequency log for 6 months in 2008, it seems i only type 17k
    strokes per day. That's 31% of the data-entry clerk scenario above.
    Or, i only type ONE hour a day!

    I was quite surprised how low my own figure is. But thinking about it…
    it make sense. Even we sit in front of computer all day, but the
    actual typing is probably some miniscule percentage of that. Most of
    the time, you have to chat, lunch, run errands, browse web, read docs,
    run to the bathroom. Perhaps only half of your work time is active
    coding or writing (emails; docs). Of that duration, perhaps majority
    of time you are digesting the info on screen. Your whole day's typing
    probably can be done in less than 20 minutes if you just type
    continuously.

    If your typing doesn't come anywhere close to a data-entry clerk, then
    any layout “more efficient†than Dvorak is practically meaningless.

    Xah
    Xah Lee, Jun 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xah Lee

    Elena Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <> wrote:
    > Studies have shown that even a
    > strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
    > acclimated.


    Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much more (about 40%
    more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
    Elena, Jun 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Jun 13, 11:30 am, Tim Roberts <> wrote:
    > Xah Lee <> wrote:
    >
    > >(a lil weekend distraction from comp lang!)

    >
    > >in recent years, there came this Colemak layout. The guy who created
    > >it, Colemak, has a site, and aggressively market his layout. It's in
    > >linuxes distro by default, and has become somewhat popular.
    > >...
    > >If your typing doesn't come anywhere close to a data-entry clerk, then
    > >any layout “more efficient” than Dvorak is practically meaningless.

    >
    > More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
    > meaningless.  The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
    > the QWERTY layout is an urban legend.  Once your fingers have the mapping
    > memorized, the actual order is irrelevent.  Studies have shown that even a
    > strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
    > acclimated.
    > --
    > Tim Roberts,
    > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.


    Could you show which studies? Do they do research just about habit or
    other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
    Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?
    Yang Ha Nguyen, Jun 13, 2011
    #3
  4. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Yang Ha Nguyen <> wrote:
    > Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
    > other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
    > Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?


    And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
    right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
    hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
    re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
    that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
    stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
    have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
    others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
    reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
    fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).

    Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
    going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.

    Chris Angelico
    Chris Angelico, Jun 13, 2011
    #4
  5. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:53 -0700, Elena wrote:

    > On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <> wrote:
    >> Studies have shown that even a
    >> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
    >> acclimated.

    >
    > Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much more (about 40% more
    > for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.


    The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding.
    Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile
    for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day
    mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your
    typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer
    users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity
    increases by 200% (three times more work done).

    I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
    programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it
    were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being thinking,
    planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers, reading
    documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on the
    whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

    And even in that 20% of the time when you are actively typing code,
    you're not merely transcribing written text but writing new code, and
    active composition is well known to slow down typing speed compared to
    transcribing. You might hit 90 wpm in the typing test, but when writing
    code you're probably typing at 50 wpm with the occasional full speed
    burst.

    So going from a top speed (measured when transcribing text) of 30 wpm to
    90 wpm sounds good on your CV, but in practice the difference in
    productivity is probably tiny. Oh, and if typing faster just means you
    make more typos in less time, then the productivity increase is
    *negative*.

    Keyboard optimizations, I believe, are almost certainly a conceit. If
    they really were that good an optimization, they would be used when
    typing speed is a premium. The difference between an average data entry
    operator at 90 wpm and a fast one at 150 wpm is worth real money. If
    Dvorak and other optimized keyboards were really that much better, they
    would be in far more common use. 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.

    Even if we accept that Dvorak is an optimization, it's a micro-
    optimization. And like most optimizations, there is a very real risk that
    it is actually a pessimation: if it takes you three months to get back up
    to speed on a new keyboard layout, you potentially may never make back
    that lost time in your entire programming career.



    --
    Steven
    Steven D'Aprano, Jun 13, 2011
    #5
  6. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout?

    Steven D'Aprano <> writes:

    > The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding.
    > Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile
    > for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day
    > mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your
    > typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer
    > users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity
    > increases by 200% (three times more work done).
    >
    > I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
    > programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it
    > were as much as 20% of the work day.


    I'd agree that while programming, typing speed is not usually a problem
    (but it has been reported that some star programmers could issue bug
    free code faster than they could type, and they could type fast!).


    Now, where the gain lies, is in typing flames on IRC or usenet.

    If they can do it faster, then it's more time left for programming.

    --
    __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
    A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
    Pascal J. Bourguignon, Jun 13, 2011
    #6
  7. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:30:43 -0700, Tim Roberts <>
    declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:


    > More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
    > meaningless. The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
    > the QWERTY layout is an urban legend. Once your fingers have the mapping


    Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to
    fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were
    placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to
    reduce jamming multiple type blocks (didn't help for my last name -- I
    and E are on opposing hands, same fingers, making for a fast parallel
    reach).

    Low pressure electronic keys don't have the strength feedback
    slowing down the outer fingers.
    --
    Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
    Dennis Lee Bieber, Jun 13, 2011
    #7
  8. Xah Lee

    Ethan Furman Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    Steven D'Aprano wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:53 -0700, Elena wrote:
    >
    >> On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <> wrote:
    >>> Studies have shown that even a
    >>> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
    >>> acclimated.

    >> Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much more (about 40% more
    >> for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

    >
    > The actual physical cost of typing is


    more than dollars and cents.

    The difference for me is not typing speed, but my wrists. The Dvorak
    layout is much easier on me than the QWERTY one was.

    ~Ethan~
    Ethan Furman, Jun 13, 2011
    #8
  9. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    Chris Angelico wrote:

    > And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    > computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    > mouse as well as a keyboard?


    What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
    big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
    Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
    built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
    right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

    Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
    when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

    --
    Greg
    Gregory Ewing, Jun 14, 2011
    #9
  10. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Gregory Ewing
    <> wrote:
    > Chris Angelico wrote:
    >
    >> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    >> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    >> mouse as well as a keyboard?

    >
    > What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
    > big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
    >
    > Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
    > when moving back to the keyboard. :-(


    That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much. Hands
    don't have to leave to grab the mouse. Although if you lay out your
    desk right (assuming you have one - the other advantage of the laptop
    is the ability to type at the same speed on a bus) you can change that
    "two big blocks of keys" issue. For instance, I have a computer at
    work where the mouse is in front of the keyboard (between me and it).
    It looks odd, but it works in practice. The actual distance my hand
    moves to get from home keys to mouse is about the same as swinging to
    the right past the numpad, but since I'm aiming in the opposite
    direction, it's easier to not hit the off-by-one.

    But as an old jester Pointed out, you can come in time to like
    anything that you get used to.

    ChrisA
    PS. "Pointed" is not a mistake, but I doubt anyone on this list will
    know why I did it.
    Chris Angelico, Jun 14, 2011
    #10
  11. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On 2011-06-14, Gregory Ewing <> wrote:
    > Chris Angelico wrote:
    >
    >> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    >> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    >> mouse as well as a keyboard?

    >
    > What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
    > big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
    > Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
    > built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
    > right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.


    That's why I always buy keyboards without numeric keypads. :)

    Another good solution is to put the mouse on the left-hand side.

    --
    Grant
    Grant Edwards, Jun 14, 2011
    #11
  12. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Jun 13, 6:45 pm, Gregory Ewing <> wrote:
    > Chris Angelico wrote:
    > > And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    > > computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    > > mouse as well as a keyboard?

    >
    > What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
    > big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
    > Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
    > built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
    > right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.
    >
    > Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
    > when moving back to the keyboard. :-(


    numerical keypad is useful to many. Most people can't touch type. Even
    for touch typist, many doesn't do the number keys. So, when they need
    to type credit, phone number, etc, they go for the number pad. Also, i
    think the number pad esentially have become a calculator for vast
    majority of computer users. These days, almost all keyboard from
    Microsoft or Logitech has a Calculator button near the number pad to
    launch it.

    i myself, am a qwerty typist since ~1987, also worked as data entry
    clerk for a couple of years. Am a dvorak touch typist since 1994. (and
    emacs since 1997) However, i never learned touch type the numbers on
    the main section till i think ~2005. Since about 2008, the numerical
    keypad is used as extra function keys.

    Xah
    Xah Lee, Jun 14, 2011
    #12
  13. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Jun 13, 6:19 am, Steven D'Aprano 〔steve
    〕 wrote:

    │ I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
    │ programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised
    if it
    │ were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being
    thinking,
    │ planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers,
    reading
    │ documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on
    the
    │ whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

    you can find the study on my site. URL in the first post of this
    thread.

    Xah
    Xah Lee, Jun 14, 2011
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    Elena Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On 13 Giu, 11:22, Chris Angelico <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Yang Ha Nguyen <> wrote:
    >
    > > Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
    > > other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
    > > Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?

    >
    > And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
    > computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
    > mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
    > right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
    > hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
    > re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
    > that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
    > stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
    > have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
    > others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
    > reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
    > fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).
    >
    > Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
    > going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.
    >
    > Chris Angelico


    Moreover, I've seen people move the mouse faster than I could achieve
    the same task by keyboard.

    To me, the advantage of ergonomic layout is not about speed - I'm sure
    there will always be people able to type blazingly fast on any random
    layout - but about comfort. Even when typing slowly, I don't want my
    fingers and my hands neither moving much more nor contorting much more
    than necessary.
    Elena, Jun 14, 2011
    #14
  15. Xah Lee

    Dotan Cohen Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:21, Elena <> wrote:
    > On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <> wrote:
    >> Studies have shown that even a
    >> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
    >> acclimated.

    >
    > Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40%
    > more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
    >


    And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
    (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
    tab, and backspace are taken into account.

    I'm developing a QWERTY-based layout that moves the load off the
    pinkies and onto the index fingers:
    http://dotancohen.com/eng/noah_ergonomic_keyboard_layout.html

    There is a Colemak version in the works as well.

    --
    Dotan Cohen

    http://gibberish.co.il
    http://what-is-what.com
    Dotan Cohen, Jun 14, 2011
    #15
  16. Xah Lee

    Andrew Berg Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On 2011.06.13 08:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
    > That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much.

    I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
    evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
    making tons of errors. I constantly have to fix typos (the 'o' key is
    the worst) when writing with this thing, and I'm not typing fast at all.
    I suppose if you have really small hands, the compact layout might be
    more comfortable, but I hate my keyboard. Then again, maybe I just have
    a tiny keyboard; you might have one that actually fills the space on the
    bottom.
    Andrew Berg, Jun 14, 2011
    #16
  17. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Dotan Cohen <> wrote:
    > And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
    > (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
    > tab, and backspace are taken into account.


    That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
    doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
    typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
    in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...

    Chis Angelico
    Chris Angelico, Jun 15, 2011
    #17
  18. Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Berg <> wrote:
    > On 2011.06.13 08:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
    >> That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much.

    > I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
    > evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
    > making tons of errors.


    > Then again, maybe I just have a tiny keyboard; you
    > might have one that actually fills the space on the bottom.


    There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
    seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
    decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
    of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
    last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
    various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
    the available room. Obviously there's no numeric keypad on a keyboard
    that small (having one overlaid on the main keyboard doesn't help when
    you're playing Angband), but other than that, it's a complete keyboard
    with enough room for the fingers to whack the right keys.

    There's also a lot of difference in travel. The smaller keyboards have
    keys that move about half a nanometer, but better keyboards feel
    right. The worst keyboard of all, in that sense, would have to be the
    virtual laser keyboard, no longer available on ThinkGeek but seems to
    be here http://www.virtual-laser-devices.com/ - it's an incredibly
    cool concept, but I can't imagine actually using one long-term. Typing
    on concrete is not my idea of productivity.

    Chris Angelico
    Chris Angelico, Jun 15, 2011
    #18
  19. Xah Lee

    Andrew Berg Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On 2011.06.14 07:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
    > There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
    > seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
    > decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
    > of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
    > last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
    > various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
    > the available room.

    I thought that might be the case. I can take a picture of mine if you're
    keeping a collection of bad laptop keyboards. :D
    Seriously, I have a 17.1" display, and the keyboard is almost small
    enough for a large tablet. It takes up no more than 30% of the area
    available.
    Also, the left shift and left control keys don't want to work most of
    the time, but that's another issue.
    Andrew Berg, Jun 15, 2011
    #19
  20. Xah Lee

    rusi Guest

    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

    On Jun 15, 5:11 am, Chris Angelico <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Dotan Cohen <> wrote:
    > > And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
    > > (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
    > > tab, and backspace are taken into account.

    >
    > That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
    > doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
    > typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
    > in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...


    For keyboarding (in the piano/organ sense) the weakest finger is not
    the fifth/pinky but the fourth.
    Because for the fifth you will notice that the natural movement is to
    stiffen the finger and then use a slight outward arm-swing; for thumb,
    index and middle, they of course have their own strength.

    The fourth has neither advantage. IOW qwerty is not so bad as it
    could have been if it were qewrty (or asd was sad)
    rusi, Jun 15, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    413
    Shahid Siddiqui
    Apr 25, 2005
  2. Rashrashetta
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    346
    kaeli
    Mar 3, 2005
  3. Luc The Perverse

    Sweet! I found a worthwhile game engine!

    Luc The Perverse, Dec 18, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    495
    Luc The Perverse
    Dec 19, 2005
  4. Developwebsites

    worthwhile learning?

    Developwebsites, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    537
    Nick Howes
    Nov 24, 2003
  5. Rustom Mody
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    392
    Xah Lee
    Jun 14, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page