> 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.
yes, this is emacs poetry :)
Now re-reading it, that entire paragraph sounds like high-horse highfalutin. I should've used a simpler tone. Emacs is not that sophisticated; it's not "a lifetime achievement" to brag about - it's a tool. Tools need mostly two things: care and use. But the choice for doing either ultimately belongs to the one who chooses to use a tool. Use whatever tools, programming languages, distros, techniques make you happy. I like mine. I'm just happy to share that feeling with people. I'm not saying my choices could make someone else happy, but they made me. I just wish I had listened sooner to someone passionate and persuasive who could tell me about how some choices can make you happier.
It's beautiful and why there's not all that many Emacs users... it requires a commitment, at the very least.
> it requires a commitment
What serious tool doesn't?