On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 13:14, Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:54, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 01. 07. 20 18:33, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:28 am, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
wrote:
> >> I have not much opinion on whether we should use this vs. nano.
> >
> > Actually, playing with it for an extra three minutes... it's *really*
nice.
> >
> > I know micro is not nearly as standard or popular as nano, but... this is
worth
> > serious additional consideration.
>
> I love micro. The problematic part is it's rather big.
>
> nano: 670 k
> micro: 4.7 M
>
> (sizes from repoquery --info)
To be fair, we should add ncurses-libs and file-libs as dependencies:
330 k + 570 k = 900 k more. But yes, micro is still bigger, as its
name suggests. :)
> BTW My keyboard bindings for micro that resemble a standard (modern) terminal
> session more:
https://gist.github.com/hroncok/f7bc01080e3b72320b858c437af92151
That's very useful, thanks!
On a side note.. I went looking to see if someone had an editor name
smaller than nano.
pico was the editor that nano replaces.
femto is an editor on Apple phones written in javascript
atto is an editor in the Moodle web app.
there is a zepto which is at
https://github.com/hughbarney/zepto (and
also has an atto which is emacs like)
https://github.com/hughbarney/zepto#comparisons-with-other-emacs-implemen...
gives size estimates from 3 years ago.
that leaves yocto which is a different distribution.. and nothing is
defined smaller than a yocto
in the end, we should just probably choose something.. we can always
change our minds in 6 months to something else.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.