Features are intended to save time, right? So...is an infinitely featureful editor best, if it also takes infinite time to complete operations? I know this is an absurd extremity; just trying to make a point that features that end up taking longer to "do the thing" than a faster editor with fewer features could do the same thing, aren't providing greater utility than the less featured editor.

Note, I'm not saying that the more featureful editors aren't worth the trade off in performance. Just that there is a point where it wouldn't be a good trade. I use both Atom and VS Code (trying to figure out which I like better) for my more complex projects (a lot of files/deps/etc) that I can test locally. But, fall back to vim for quick changes on single files and whenever I'm testing-editing-committing on a remote machine or VM. It's a feature that vim starts instantly, wherever I am. It's a feature that it's still fast(ish) even over a slow(ish) network. A killer features in this case...I can't use Atom or VS Code, at all, on a remote server over a slow link. Literally impossible to do.

So, why not compare a bunch of different editors with wildly different capabilities, if it provides insight into the relative performance and sizes of the editors? And, to be fair, some of the fast/light editors are roughly as capable as VS Code, Atom, or Sublime. vim and Emacs are plenty powerful editors with huge ecosystems of additional functionality. I understand the appeal of a good GUI, and the bigger/slower editors do have superior UI to vim or emacs, but it's just one feature of many we can compare.