Ya, it's somewhat surprising that ZZ isn't the binding that is burned into people's minds instead of :wq<cr>. I've even met regular vim users who don't know ZZ which, to be a bit hyperbolic, is mindboggling.

EDIT: And of course there is vim -y to make vim behave more like a "normal" editor than even nano :D (ie, you get ctrl-s and ctrl-q).

For me, it's because when I learned BSD 4.2 vi in the mid-80s the emphasis was on learning the decomposed commands then building up. If you learned w and q , wq is obvious and non-magical.

Certainly a fair point!

I've been using vi variants for decades and didn't know ZZ or ZQ. This solves a major pain point for me (mis-typing :q, trying again, now I'm off in the weeds).

ZZ is particularly nice since it sorta "does the right thing" in that if you have an unwritten empty buffer, it will silently discard it and quit. I guess I haven't really run into this as I was taught ZZ from the beginning but I imagine hitting :wq<cr> on such a buffer is pretty annoying.

The worst part is q: is a different command. so if you are trying to :q and miss the colon and try again, you run some other damn f*cking command.

Oh I still do that often enough, lol.

Huh, I didn’t think of ZQ (to leave an empty commit message) to cancel the commit. I always use :cq (which exits vim with an error status)

If you are in `git commit --amend` or am/rebase/cherry-pick, the message did not start empty, and using ZQ will proceed with committing. :cq is a good idea.