I am no longer impressed by the gray color treatment of my comments when it happens (don't get the impression that it's the norm; it's fairly rare). HN has showed me that it's much more about group-think and cargo culting than objective and calm discussion. Obviously those elements still kinda sorta prevail a good part of the time but for the most part the random HN user fell victim to the usual big herd logic fallacies. So let them press their arrows, that's not changing anything. And I didn't even claim something is objectively / universally bad. I said that the priorities of Emacs are not my priorities, in not-the-perfect diplomatic way that's apparently expected. Some people couldn't take that and pressed the arrow.

It's their right. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

With that being said, I also struggled with Emacs. Again, too much freedom. I don't want to care where am I supposed to put `.el` files. I want a plugin manager and to be able to tell it: install / update / delete. Neovim's Lazy and Mason do that and that's why I love them. Just earlier today some configuration of a plugin broke; it used git submodules and something got moved and the new revision used another mechanism. I literally fixed it in 5 seconds: deleted the plugin, installed it again, and configuration persisted and I didn't have to set it up again. Reopen a file (just input `:e` in the command bar), everything worked right away. Is this too much to ask of Emacs?

> They just seem to make breaking changes a lot more often.

That was my experience as well. Always some warning in the command bar or a full-blown stack trace. No thanks. I don't associate with amateur work.