When comparing pico vs Textadept, the Slant community recommends Textadept for most people. In the question“What are the best terminal editors?” Textadept is ranked 8th while pico is ranked 14th. The most important reason people chose Textadept is:
You can write plugins pretty easily. [Here](http://foicica.com/textadept/api.html) is the API doc, quite compact. [Here](http://foicica.com/hg/ctags/file/a1a51a95b899/init.lua) is a module which adds a support for ctags.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Easy to use
Pico includes only the bare minimum of functionality needed to edit documents making it very simple.
Pro Built-in cheat sheet for shortcuts
All command characters are shown at the bottom of the editor.
Pro Has both GUI and TUI
Both text and GUI versions behave mostly the same, just the way notepad users would expect it to.
Like shift+arrows - select, Ctrl+c - copy, Ctrl+o - open a file.
Pro Small and portable
Has very few dependencies, and very small footprint. Can be copied to a new system in a moment, unpacked and be at your service.
Has a built-in lua engine.
It's available for Windows, Mac and Linux.
Con No way to override command characters
Characters such as ^D, ^T, ^L, etc will always be interpreted as commands and there's no way to write them in text.
Con Lacks some commonly expected functionality even for a basic editor
Pico lacks search and replace functionality as well as the ability to work work with multiple files at the same time.
Does not have an IRC channel or some kind of forum where a community of developers/plugin writers could evolve around. Has a mailing list which is said to be active but that does not feel that attractive.