Re: evidence: nano(1) is *NOT* better than Emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> Pardon my saying so, but that's ridiculous.
>
> In the case of Emacs, you rule out any changes. Then
> you make changes to Nano and claim victory.

With configuration, all bets are of. We can have a
competition - who can make Emacs look the best, and
who can make nano look the best? That'd be interesting
but the judges' call would be disputed I think even if
unanimous (which is remote).

Without configuration, as it shows in the screenshot I
posted, I think nano looks the best with respect to
the syntax highlighting.

So I'm sorry, nano ownz you. It is the 1337 stuff.
Deal with it.

And... check out:

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/emacs.html

Kind of creative Emacs use especially for a guy who
rules out changes to Emacs? :)

-- 
underground experts united