> "As I said before, the Blub paradox applies: it's easy to recognize something less powerful than what you're familiar with as such, but something more powerfu

> "As I said before, the Blub paradox applies: it's easy to recognize something less powerful than what you're familiar with as such, but something more powerful just looks weird. From the sound of it, Emacs looks very weird to you. It did to me, too, before I started using it. Now I won't willingly use anything else. Perhaps I'm just very weird, too." Nah, it's nothing to do with the blub paradox. I've dabbled with Emacs before, I could see certain benefits to its flexibility, but was put off by other factors such as the clunky keyboard shortcuts (which is why I'm glad for both ergoemacs and spacemacs, as they have better defaults IMO), reliance on Lisp and a couple of other minor issues. Overall I think it's a great tool, and I can see why its popular. That said, using the blub paradox implies (whether you intended to or not) that you believe it's more powerful than the competition. The way I see it is that any program is only as good as its existing features. Org mode is a good example of a strong feature for Emacs, but I could point out a number of strong feature for VS too. IntelliTest is a good example: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn823749.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn823749.aspx IntelliTrace is another: https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2012/02/07/intellitrace-in-production.aspx?m=1 https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2012/02/07/intelli... If someone has only ever debugged using print statements or breakpoints then they miss the power of such features, so I could just as easily invoke the blub paradox with reference to VS as well. The point is there is not one single ultimate tool, they all have strengths and weaknesses. Emacs is not a paradigm shift better than VS, and VS is not a paradigm shift better than Emacs, so the blub paradox does not apply.