Agreed that Elisp needs to be upgraded. I think that it should just be replaced with Common Lisp, which has namespaces (packages), and is very fast, and whose implementations support networking & threads just fine. Of note, part of why Emacs regexps are so unusual is that they are pragmatic: since they will be used to match Lisp source so often, () are not the metachars they are in other regexp dialects.
Parentheses are also not metachars in Vi (and Vim) regexps by default, and are not metachars in POSIX BRE (basic regular expressions).
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1...
The grep utility, for instance, understands BREs by default; you must use grep -E to get ERE (extended regex) in which ( and ) are grouping characters, or else the deprecated egrep command (not in POSIX).
Eh, no.
Emacs has a shitload of bugs (sorry for the language), and an ad-hoc configuration and package installation that inevitably turns your Emacs installation into a bespoke ball of mud.
(Goes in hand with 'malleability', I guess, but still a very subpar user experience.)
It isn't helped by the fact that some devs insist on using bleeding edge melpa packages and their stable versions are broken. Other devs' bleeding edge versions are prone to break..
Emacs, with its packages, is one of the most chaotic things I've seen. I don't know if there's any hope for me to tame it in a reasonable timeframe.
It's an open question, but I suspect it's not impossible to have both a robust and flexible system...think Emacs, but instead of the wild-west of Lisp as the extension language, something more in the vein of Rust...
What do you mean? Emacs has them too, just not nice ones. Also, emacs is not an IDE, so there is some limit on what kind of interfaces people will build.
But yes, the GUI-parts of emacs are a big liability for future growing. While emacs does has offer all the nice visual tweaks, they also all sucks because of bad implementation and limitations in emacs itself.