←back to thread

Microsoft Edit

(github.com)
486 points ethanpil | 1 comments | 25 Jun 25 00:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.757s | source
Show context
pxc ◴[25 Jun 25 01:20 UTC] No.44372814[source]▶
I used to recommend micro[1] to people like those in the target audience of this editor. I wonder if that should change or not.

--

1: https://micro-editor.github.io/

replies(5): >>44373245 #>>44374404 #>>44374937 #>>44381163 #>>44384221 #
seabrookmx ◴[25 Jun 25 02:49 UTC] No.44373245[source]▶
IMO it should not.

`edit` doesn't even support syntax highlighting (atleast, out of the box when I tried it).

replies(2): >>44373324 #>>44374287 #
Litruv ◴[25 Jun 25 03:07 UTC] No.44373324[source]▶
I think you missed the point of edit.
replies(3): >>44373833 #>>44379436 #>>44389184 #
bapak ◴[25 Jun 25 05:18 UTC] No.44373833[source]▶
I think not. Edit is to edit files in the terminal. What kind of files do you expect people to edit in the terminal? Most certainly files that would benefit from colors, not prose.
replies(2): >>44374131 #>>44374610 #
shakna ◴[25 Jun 25 06:19 UTC] No.44374131[source]▶
A lot of authors, myself included, want a "distraction free" editor. Its a whole over-populated market segment.

Prose thrives in the terminal. Ice and Fire was written in WordStar, as just one popular example.

replies(3): >>44374420 #>>44374988 #>>44384635 #
1. red_admiral ◴[25 Jun 25 08:42 UTC] No.44374988[source]▶
Rachel Kroll once posted that she writes her posts in nano, with the distraction of syntax highlighting turned off: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/09/24/editor/

I can't find the link but I think at some point she compiled her own nano with some "helpful" feature patched out again.