Again, I am going to try to push through this, but the first impressions I’m getting here is that emacs is abandonware. Tier-1 menus that don’t work. Documentation that’s totally untested, inconsistent and full of dead links and weirdly dated terminology (“visit new file”?) This software has not cared at all about new users’ first impressions in a really, really long time, if ever.
When I catch Emacs behaving like a conventional app (e.g. entering text replaces the selected text), I often treat it like a roach in the kitchen and edit my .emacs/init.el to squash that shit dead.
I.e., Emacs is its own wierd thing and it invented this stuff before it became common.
I view this with the kind of affection one has for an eccentric that one has learned to deal with (e.g. a sysadmin 🥁) but acknowledge it's not necessarily healthy.
Emacs falls into the category of tools that require some up-front time investment to learn before it becomes useful.
(I have some half-formed thoughts on how the field of UX tends to conflate "easy to use" with "easy to learn to use" or "easy to use without upfront effort" and that a lot of the most powerful software tools available are considered hard only because you need to learn to use it up front, but that's tangential.)
@suetanvil I have some sympathy for that position in general, but this is Stockholm Syndrome. There’s a difference between “this is challenging to learn because it is a big, complicated tool” and “this is challenging to learn because the documentation is missing, outdated or wrong”.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!