Yes, Nano

I would have entitled this piece "no thanks, emacs," but

due to over usage in situations where we are trying to

hide the intensity of our true feelings, it seems that

the term "no thanks" comes off sarcastic, and would seem

so even more as a title. Thus, rather than be negative,

the title is positive: yes, Nano, because it works for

me.

Keeping in mind that I just use it to write prose and the

simplest of scripts, Nano is good enough for me. In fact,

Nano has a similarity to the codex book in that much of the

value comes not what is in it, but rather what is not in

it, and thus filtered out.

My life has been plagued with big pile ups of projects

began, but not moved along very far. Using Nano in the way

I do, with a one level of abstraction to outline, a tab

for an action-level to do list, a place for the one piece

I am writing and one last tab for possible scripting forces

structure onto what I am doing.

I am afraid that Emacs would simply enable my tendency to

veer off in a bunch of directions. I get how powerful it can

be for writing code -- the demonstrations are mind-blowing --

but as it is I am sticking with minimalism.

Blessed are those that emacs can save. But I don't think I

am of the Elect.