> More generally, I agree with you. If it were up to me I would prefer to use Emacs as a baseline. But it's not up to me, just like it wasn't up to Google to de

> More generally, I agree with you. If it were up to me I would prefer to use Emacs as a baseline. But it's not up to me, just like it wasn't up to Google to decide that Javascript wins. Ubiquity wins. Emacs lost. I don't think one can really say 'emacs lost'; the game's not over yet. Yes, emacs really has lost popularity over the last decade, and yes vi really has maintained its popularity. But emacs still exists, new users are still coming to it — and at the end of the day, emacs is a better operating environment than vi. They are both pseudo-Turing-equivalent, in the sense that emacs can perfectly emulate vi & vi can perfectly emulate emacs — but emacs is extensible in a far better language than (vi)|(vim)|(neovim). I maintain hope that as young programmers become old programmers, they will see the wisdom of true native apps (unlike Sublime), of free software (unlike TextMate) and that when they evaluate emacs vs. vi they will choose an editor they can use & extend for the rest of their lives.