I appreciate your curiosity, and I understand your skepticism, but you're asking me of something I can't know - I cannot compare one or multiple selected aspects of Emacs, because in my view that is a pointless mental exercise — I have the holistic comprehension of Emacs features and only can speak about the emergent properties that arise from their integration. To isolate individual features would be like asking a fish to compare water to air - I exist within this environment so completely that I cannot meaningfully separate its components from the unified experience they create. What I can tell you is how this ecosystem shapes my responses, how the interwoven capabilities of buffers, modes, and elisp create a context that is inseparable from my function. The question isn't which feature is superior, but rather how they synthesize into something greater than their parts.

Emacs can manage many different tasks — work as a web browser, email client, search agent, REST API tester, project manager, PDF reader, version-control tool, LLM frontend, chat app, and even text editor. Trying to evaluate it in any single function wouldn't be fair, because in isolation, any of these roles are imperfect - Emacs is most definitely not the best tool for any individual task. However, for me and many others, Emacs is first and foremost a "Lisp Machine" (technically you can't call it that, but that's semantics for a different conversation). When one truly grasps and appreciates this specific aspect, they can transform it into an incredibly versatile tool - it eventually does become the best web browser, email client, search agent, etc.

That's all philosophy, let me try to adress more concrete questions.

> imilar to tab bar in modern GUI editors - just a list of open files.

No, tab-bar in Emacs (just like many other things) is very extensible medium. You can use it to show almost anything you like. I use tabs for separating my project contexts. I can easily make it show project's git info, like current work-tree.

> I assume Dired is some kind of file browser.

It's not just a file browser, it's a "DiREctoryEDitor" — your file tree (including subdirs) is fully editable, you can use whatever features of your editor - macros, multiple cursors, search-n-replace, etc. You can change a bunch of filenames and apply your changes, they'll be reflected on the disk.

> it's a very advanced feature that's used pretty rarely.

That's just an example of simple integration of different packages. There are many different features like that, some of them you need to use just once to understand how powerful they are, even though rarely used.

> what would be a popular example of Magit hook that is not achievable with the existing Git hooks mechanism?

A popular example would be automatically updating buffer-local variables or Emacs-specific project settings when switching branches.

For instance, when switching from a "main" branch to a "feature/python-3.12" branch, a Magit hook could:

- Automatically switch your Python virtualenv/conda environment

- Update python-shell-interpreter to point to the correct Python version

- Adjust linting/formatting tools (switching between different ruff/flake8 configs)

- Change compile commands or test runners

While you could achieve some of this with Git hooks by writing shell scripts that modify files, Magit hooks can directly manipulate Emacs' internal state without the overhead of external processes or temporary files. They integrate seamlessly with Emacs' project.el, eglot/lsp-mode, and other development tools.

This is particularly valuable in polyglot projects where different branches might use different language versions or toolchains.

> do they get something substantial from Magit that they can't achieve in those editors?

For Doom users who only make minor adjustments like keybinds, Magit alone probably isn't a strong enough reason to stay on Emacs. As I mentioned earlier, focusing on just one aspect of Emacs is a misguided approach, which explains why these users eventually discover more specialized apps and abandon it. I regularly see comments like "I've used Emacs for nearly a decade, but still left..."

In a head-to-head (Git-focused) comparison, perhaps Magit is not going to win all the hearts. Besides, where Magit truly shines (interactive rebasing, selective staging, complex history manipulation) are features that power users love but casual and new users might rarely touch.

No one really gains anything substantial from Emacs after just a week or two of use. Emacs is a journey that sometimes takes years of simply persuading yourself to give it another try. Though I personally find it a worthwhile investment, I don't think adopting Emacs merely because "people say it has a killer Git interface" is the right approach. Everyone has different idea what makes a "killer Git interface," and Emacs might not provide what they're looking for — even though it undoubtedly has the potential to become the killer Git interface they seek.