Yes -- at first I saw emacs' age as an annoyance, now I find it to be its greatest strength. Yes, elisp could be more "modern," even by lisp standards. Yes, tw

Yes -- at first I saw emacs' age as an annoyance, now I find it to be its greatest strength. Yes, elisp could be more "modern," even by lisp standards. Yes, twiddling a bunch of global vars and then calling global functions is not an ideal way to program to an API (this is at least sometimes the case in emacs). But the payoff for accepting these shortcomings is you get to draw on literally decades of development and a large pool of knowledgeable ongoing contributors. I've seen calls to have emacs support Rust, JavaScript, python, etc. But the X in "emacs should support X" seems to change almost yearly. Learning to accept elisp means learning to respect all the work that went before, all the code that just silently runs and works every day. Which in turn means your own contributions are much more likely to be doing some good for years and years.