News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Modern terminal-based text editor. Parent comment

Re:Modern terminal-based text editor by coldtea on Friday September 29, 2017 @04:05AM (#15363549)
>The advantage of Nano is that it is written in C, has zero required dependencies other than libc, and the compiled binary is 200 kilobytes.

The advantage for whom? Surely not the user.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Modern terminal-based text editor by nl on Friday September 29, 2017 @04:31AM (#15363663)
Having been stuck on a system where the only editor was Ed, I'd say nano availability can be a big win for the user.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Modern terminal-based text editor by zimpenfish on Friday September 29, 2017 @06:12AM (#15364036)
When I was a lad, I had to port ed in order to have a console-based editor.

(True story - A5000 with RISCOS back in about 1993)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Modern terminal-based text editor by joosters on Friday September 29, 2017 @08:32AM (#15364647)
Can we start a !Zap vs !StrongEd argument here? :)

(Zap wins, of course!)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Modern terminal-based text editor by pjmlp on Friday September 29, 2017 @07:21AM (#15364334)
The advantage for anyone trying to find out-of-bound exploits in text buffer handling.
[ Parent | on HN ]