To build on what others are saying about Emacs, if you start exploring the package ecosystem, you're going to see quite a lot of really interesting packages tha

To build on what others are saying about Emacs, if you start exploring the package ecosystem, you're going to see quite a lot of really interesting packages that are related to improving/experimenting with the UX of editing text. While I'm not endorsing anyone in particular, I think what this list does show is just how easy it is to do pretty much whatever you want in Emacs; https://karthinks.com/software/avy-can-do-anything/ https://karthinks.com/software/avy-can-do-anything/ https://github.com/jyp/boon https://github.com/jyp/boon https://github.com/clemera/objed https://github.com/clemera/objed https://github.com/jmorag/kakoune.el https://github.com/jmorag/kakoune.el https://github.com/meow-edit/meow/ https://github.com/meow-edit/meow/ https://github.com/xahlee/xah-fly-keys https://github.com/xahlee/xah-fly-keys https://github.com/Kungsgeten/ryo-modal https://github.com/Kungsgeten/ryo-modal https://github.com/emacsorphanage/god-mode https://github.com/emacsorphanage/god-mode Emacs 29 also now has treesitter and LSP mode integration built-in, a compilation mode, a comint mode for REPLs, excellent file browsing packages (I use dired/dirvish), and a few other killer features. Now, if what you truly dislike are "quirky editors", prepare yourself for a world of hurt because vanilla Emacs departs quite a bit from "modern" text editors. I struggled with this for a while, but eventually by buying into the paradigm, I now feel that when emacs tries emulating "modern" IDE features like autocompletion, LSP, and DAP UI, I feel like it's a regression, not a progression. The point here is that you might have an "idea" of what good initial UX and lack of quirks would look like, but Emacs might change the way you think.