I don't think your complaints are a common experience.
replyI've used neovim for the last 10 years, but before that I used emacs with R for many years at work and it was great, certainly not slow.
Emacs is certainly capable of speedy editing; i don't mean to imply otherwise. But there isn't much explanation as to why emacs does things the way it does even if it makes the experience shittier.
replyCan you be more specific about your complaints? It's open source software. If there are bugs we can fix them and submit a pull request.
replyActual multithreading, and a UI that was state-of-the-art sometime later than 1978, might be a good beginning.
replyI agree with you on multithreading. But for most Emacs users, the rich and highly customisable keyboard-driven UI (including packages like embark, which-key, transient, hydra, ivy/helm/vertico, etc.) is one of its strengths over traditional GUI IDEs. It doesn't need to be "state of the art" to be good, and there's a reason that Emacs has remained popular despite its age. Sure, it's not going to appeal to most VS Code users, but that isn't the point of Emacs.
replyDoes this look like 1978 to you? <https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/tour/>
replyDon't get me wrong, I don't mind old aesthetics, but... yes? Well I wasn't exactly alive in 1978 but all the screenshots look like they are at least 20 years old
replyFirstly, the original comment was about UI rather than aesthetics. Secondly, as with everything else in Emacs, you can customise the appearance however you want. Those screenshots are from vanilla Emacs. Most people heavily customise, or use an Emacs distro like Spacemacs (https://www.spacemacs.org/) or Doom (https://github.com/doomemacs/doomemacs?tab=readme-ov-file) which have more sensible default appearance configs.
reply