Also, there are too many plugins to serve the same purpose and I found it difficult (compared to neovim) to figure out the difference between them.
Interesting.
Finally, the level of customization was also less granular than what offers neovim.
Very interesting. I’d love to hear more about this. Could you elaborate?
I would add that neovim and emacs both have a steep learning curve but I personaly found the level of support and core and plugins documentation for neovim more accessible, readable, and better organized.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is in part attributable to the fact that Emacs is both an older project and is generally-speaking a bigger and/or more capable piece of software.
I completely share your vision about what an IDE should be doing. I’m old school and adhere to the “do one thing but do it right” philosophy. Also, I hate relying on one tool for several needs because if anything goes wrong it has multiple impacts.
I’ve often heard Emacs users pose the argument that Emacs as an Elisp interpreter does just one thing. It’s just that this single thing allows the myriad of functionality it offers. So in that sense comparing it to a terminal/console seems more apt than comparing it to a text editor. I wonder what you think of that argument.
As a side note, I use neomutt as my email client and you can nicely couple neovim to it to write your emails ;)
Hehe, that’s cool! Currently I’m really happy with Thunderbird so I don’t expect to move away anytime soon, but I’ll keep it in mind.