I watched oppenheimer in emacs, u watched it in imax, we are not the same

  • heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nano just feels sluggish as soon as you know vim keybindings. Emacs is a bit overkill for some quck edits, but nano is just to basic

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nano is a fantastic default editor for gui-focused distros. If you aren’t a command line wizard, nano is a better default because it’s a lot more straightforward.

      That said, nano is incredibly limited and if you have any experience with vi/vim/nvim, it’s the best solution full stop. It’s so much faster and more powerful but hot damn is it unintuitive for noobs.

    • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      By “as soon as you know” you mean “as soon as you have put those bindings to muscle memory”. Knowing them isn’t really enough.

      • russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well yeah, I’d say the same concept applies to using anything tech related these days. It’d be like if you “knew” where all of the keys on a keyboard layout that you don’t normally use are located - you’d still need muscle memory to actually use it efficiently.

    • drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, again, I don’t do much terminal text editing. I have an IDE. If I’m trying to help someone across the country 1000 miles away fix something on the machine I develop for, I’m going to give them instructions on something that will be incredibly easy to use. I don’t want to have to explain why the arrow keys aren’t working and why they have to use jkl; to navigate or explain how enter edit mode or how so save and exit. Keep it simple stupid.