For example, moving forward a character is C-f, moving forward a word is M-f, and moving a balanced expression forward is C-M-f. Same with b for backwards movement. C-a moves to the previous beginning-of-line, C-e to the next end-of-line. M-a and M-e do the same with statements in place of lines.

I can't even remember at this point how much of this is standard, but I've replicated the forward/backward movement for killing: C-d deletes a character forward, M-d kills a word, and C-M-d an expression. C-h deletes a character backward. Guess what M-h and C-M-h do.

Of course, both editors let you do basically whatever you want, so really the text input issue is just one of whether you prefer chording or modal input. And I'm not saying modal input isn't useful; Magit's input system is closer to vim's than to the rest of Emacs, as is Ediff's, and I like it that way, but I prefer chords for editing -- less state to hold in my head.

Sequential chords, though, like C-c C-v C-d, are right out, and using C-n and C-p and co. for up and down sucks, especially when I try to use M-p to select the last input in minibuffer history and hit M-o instead, prompting me to select Bold, Italic, or Other. I'll change them eventually; the hardest part is deciding what to replace them with.

/aimlessramble. I guess it all just boils down to "Use the tool you can best configure to work the way _you_ want it to." I think the linked article was trying to make the case that Emacs can be that tool for vim users.

Personally, though, I don't find the worst strain comes from the placement of Ctrl. The worst comes from the awful staggered layout of keyboards that serves no purpose save for a long chain of HCI backwards compatibility with the typewriter. I hope someday keyboards like the TEK (which, incidentally, gives a perfect spot for Alt or Ctrl under the left thumb) become more commonplace, or eye movement-based systems supplant the use of one's hands for focus control.