> > Mind that ergonomics is also very subjective. > > Unless it's objective. As in, if your defaults lead to RSI on heavy use, they are objectively bad

There's nothing objective about that. All people can ever come up with when talking about RSI is a bunch of anecdata. Now, it's probably something to take into consideration, but that's by no means objective.

It's not like anyone has done a study about Emacs' key chords and their causal effect in repetitive stress injury, versus CUA bindings (which are actually available in Emacs, just not by default.)

At least my personal anecdote is that for me, the Emacs defaults are fine, and it seems to me that most problems people experience probably come from things like poor posture and crappy laptop keyboards, which would affect the ergonomics.

> > You might not find lisp very ergonomic, but Emacs users do. > > So? The idea wasn't about banning lisp, but allowing other languages.

That's just a small matter of programming. Of course, the real questions are "why?" and "is it worth it?"

Hell, with Guile Emacs being in somewhat active development again, that should help with getting more languages supported – although that's not the official goal of the effort – like JavaScript, which already has an experimental frontend in Guile mostly just bit rotting away since people aren't volunteering to help with it.

You're confusing two claims. Lack of proof that emacs default are RSI-inducing doesn't mean that % of RSI-harmed users is not an objective measure of ergonomics.

> Of course, the real questions are "why?"

Are you having trouble answering such a simple question to feel the need to ask it?

But this is again missing the point, which was that there was no "reinvention incorporating the best ideas" because many surface-level good ideas aren't incorporated (same thing with the brighter future bit rotting plans...)