WordGrinder VS GNU nano

There are some people trying to recreate the Wordstar experience, like this one, and they supposedly were great and simple for writing long-form content (it was before my time, so I have no experience with it). Source: 10 months ago

WordGrinder. It's great for distraction-free writing, and can output Markdown or troff. It's a great tool for getting words down, but its otherwise pretty limited (which I think is one of its strengths). When I need to print or generate a PDF, I have a little script. Source: 12 months ago

For word processing there's WordGrinder, which is in the repos for many distros (in Fedora: dnf install wordgrinder). Things like LaTeX and Groff are for typesetting, which I don't view as the same as word processing. WordGrinder is more like the classical DOS word processors (e.g. WordPerfect 5.1). Source: about 1 year ago

I have a word processor I wrote (https://cowlark.com/wordgrinder) which is mostly written in Lua, with hardware-specific stuff in C, and while this works extremely well, I'd very much like something with stronger typing. There's a possibility I'd be able to just drop in Luau and get it, plus some performance benefits. I'd need to reimplement parts of the standard library due to Luau having dropped things like the... Source: over 1 year ago

I really like using WordGrinder, a terminal-based text editor. It has pretty much only the features I need and otherwise gets out of the way and let's me write. You can check it out here if you're interested. Source: almost 2 years ago

GNU nano is a text editor for Unix-like computing systems or operating environments using a command line interface. It emulates the Pico text editor, part of the Pine email client, and also provides additional functionality. Unlike Pico, nano is licensed under the GNU General Public License. Source: almost 3 years ago