Saying a "modern alternative" implicitly suggests that nano is not modern, or that it is somehow outdated or unfit for "modern" use-cases. This couldn't be fart

Saying a "modern alternative" implicitly suggests that nano is not modern, or that it is somehow outdated or unfit for "modern" use-cases. This couldn't be farther from the truth. E.g. I'm currently using nano to edit a latex document, with full in-nano compiling and evince-synctex support (i.e. jump to/from pdf in nano). This required only a measly three lines of macros to be added to my .nanorc. I am also a (reasonably knowledgeable) vim user, but I prefer nano for my coding, and now only tend to use vim when collaborating with a vim colleague. Everytime I hear vim rants about keystrokes and vim-magic, I chuckle because usually I can do the exact same thing with (my configuration of) nano at least as fast, if not faster. (no hate to vim, vim is also an excellent editor; I'm just pointing out that people tend not to realise or talk much about the power/potential of nano im the same way as they do for vim) Incidentally, I did try micro last time it was posted on HN. I tried very hard to like it, but in the end it just couldn't hold a candle against the latest nano. Note that often enough what people refer to as nano is some antiquated version that happened to have been bundled in their system. I saw a (reasonably modern) system recently whose nano version was 2.3! Meanwhile the latest nano is v7.2, and the added features just in the last two updates were gamechangers.