Comparison is fair. What's presented there isn't exactly a comparison, though. It claims to "take features from some of the most popular editors out there, gain

Comparison is fair. What's presented there isn't exactly a comparison, though. It claims to "take features from some of the most popular editors out there, gaining the best of all worlds", then proceed to list features that are decidedly not the best, nor even differentiating: - Vim: they took away "being a keyboard-only editor" (every CLI/TUI text editor?) and "being able to act just like an IDE after some configuration" (most programmer text editors?). Also, "being a keyboard-only editor" isn't even accurate for vim, it totally supports mouse input even in a terminal: https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xterm https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Using_the_mouse_for_Vim_in_an_xt... - Emacs: they took away "a configuration system where you can change the colours and appearance of the editor"... This is adequately discussed elsewhere in the thread. Therefore, gp's analogy of taking away wheels and tires from Ferrari is apt.