Sure, its learning curve is unusually high and Elisp knowledge is required for some edge cases, but it's definitely worth in the medium and the long run.
Sure, its learning curve is unusually high and Elisp knowledge is required for some edge cases, but it's definitely worth in the medium and the long run.
Did you miss the visual and semantic adjectives?
I know UNIX since Xenix and DG-UX days, before Linux was a thing and Emacs was my editor to go up to 2005.
Unless it has changed radically, no it cannot do all these features. Half of them, yes.
Sure you can program them yourself, to get as end result some text interface to ELisp functions.
But I no longer want to spend time doing that.
> For Lisp languages there is simply no other option.
Only if you don't want to pay for proper Common Lisp environments. They can do so much more.
It didn't. Emacs still tries to do most of those things and fails more often than not. I love Emacs and I use it daily, but between it's dated look, monstrous codebase, enormous feature set and limited resources dedicated to development it cannot hope to match programs written for a single purpose by a team of professionals.
Still, Emacs is great editor. I'm not going to dump Org Mode, for example, and calc is great, and scripting is absolutely awesome (Emacs is also great IDE for Elisp) and so on. It's great for many things, and it's even ok for programming, but it's never going to be as good as IDEs. And IDEs are not going to have mail & newsgroup clients built into them, I suppose.