Is Emacs dying?
Claims that the Emacs text editor is “dying” prompt mixed reactions: many note its shrinking visibility among younger developers and low usage compared to tools like VS Code and Neovim, especially in language communities such as Rust and Go. Others argue Emacs remains uniquely powerful as a deeply extensible, Lisp-based environment whose value lies in customization, integrated workflows (e.g., TRAMP, Magit, Org mode) and longevity rather than mass adoption or “out of the box” polish. The debate centers on whether steep learning curves, dated defaults and fragmented ecosystem are signs of stagnation or simply the cost of a tool aimed at power users rather than mainstream convenience.
Overall sentiment
- Many note that claims “Emacs is dying” have existed for decades; it’s seen as perpetually “dying” but never gone.
- Several argue that even if it shrank, as open‑source it remains usable for those who care.
- Some view it as a timeless niche tool (likened to Latin, bicycles, RSS) that will likely never disappear.
Adoption & demographics
- Multiple comments report few or no undergraduates using Emacs today; 20 years ago Emacs/Vim were common in classes.
- Recent language surveys cited: Emacs usage is single‑digit percent, far below VS Code and well below Vim/Neovim; some say this ratio has been stable for years.
- Emacs is reported as common among older programmers, professors, and in some finance environments, but rarely seen among younger devs.
Strengths & unique capabilities
- Core selling point: extreme extensibility via Emacs Lisp, with hooks, function advising, powerful macros, indirect buffers, integrated shells, TRAMP for remote editing, calc, calendar, org‑mode, magit, dired, etc.
- Emacs can integrate complex workflows (coding, note‑taking, PDFs, video transcripts, Anki, AI tools) in one cohesive, keyboard‑driven environment.
- Evil mode (Vim emulation) is praised as more complete and pervasive than vim‑plugins in other IDEs, showing how deeply Emacs can be reshaped.
Weaknesses & UX complaints
- Default keybindings and UI are widely criticized as archaic and hostile to new users; many feel sane defaults and tabs/tree views should be built‑in.
- Some describe Emacs as patchwork, single‑threaded, and visually unpolished, with occasional performance issues (freezes, stuttering, slow startup).
- Language tooling is seen as fragmented (e.g., eglot vs lsp‑mode) and harder to set up than in modern IDEs.
Documentation & learning curve
- Disagreement: some say Emacs documentation and introspection are exemplary; others find it huge, dry, jargon‑heavy, and hard for content discovery.
- Several note they bounced off Emacs multiple times; Vim/Neovim (with tutorials and modern content) felt easier to learn.
- A recurring theme is that to really “get” Emacs, one must learn Emacs Lisp, which many do not want to do.
Ecosystem & evolution
- Some perceive stagnation and too few core maintainers; others point to accelerating development, better language features (JIT, Tree‑sitter), and a vast Elisp ecosystem as evidence of health.
- There’s debate over whether Emacs should be rewritten (e.g., in a modern Lisp with threads) versus incrementally improved.
- Overall, the thread converges on: Emacs is niche, not mainstream, but still very actively used and unlikely to vanish.