Nothing's wrong with it. It's just incomparable categorically. Just like you can't really equate a photo-editor and the web-browser. Sure, there's a way to do photo editing in the browser, still will be weird to compare them.
> Neovim has been much better
In what sense? Emacs is a Lisp interpreter with a text editor embedded in it - one can fully emulate Neovim features in it, the opposite is hardly possible - you can bolt Lisp interpreter on top of Neovim, but it won't be the same.
> I just want a good text editor
Is that implying Emacs doesn't have "a good one"? You probably just have not discovered some mind-blowing features of the editor. It is hands down the best-known machine ever designed to deal with plain text, nothing even comes close. Indirect buffers alone are such a brilliant idea, I have zero clue how people ever exposed to that power would willingly abandon it. I get it though, building a text-manipulating theater orchestrated by Lisp is not for everyone. Unfortunately, most newcomers get attracted to Emacs hearing "how powerful an editor it is", without ever learning what exactly makes it as such.
Unless this is specifically what you want to do with Neovim, in which case you'll probably just use Emacs anyway, Neovim's inability to do this is probably not a strike against it. As royal__ says (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48537120), they are just interested in a good text editor, not in raw computational power.
The big reason I switched is because a lot of the big features of Emacs (org mode, magit, "living" in Emacs, advanced text manipulation, the extreme extensibility of the software) were things that sound really amazing on paper, but in practice I just don't really need/use/care about, and that's just my preferences. But once again, Emacs is cool and I totally respect what it can do.
It's almost invariably about the trade-offs, without knowing what they are and how to navigate them would remain a highly debatable topic.
You have fixated on a single (albeit voluminous) aspect of things to make a choice. But there are dozens of other things we can drop there and steer away from Emacs with wrong conclusions, e.g. Emacs has mail client capabilities, and for anyone unfamiliar with Lisp, it might be obvious - more specialized email apps would look far more capable. But for an experienced Lisper, no specialized app would ever suffice. Particularly because Lisp allows them to adapt things with extreme precision, specifically for their use cases.
> The big reason I switched
You have switched (as it seems) without even understanding what it was about. It's not about Org, Magit, or any other "features" of Emacs. The main idea is and always was the Lisp interpreter. For someone like me (staunch Lisper) Magit is not some "packaged", ready-to-use piece of software, it's a set of libraries I can use. I can easily incorporate just about any Magit function into my workflow directly. I don't have to submit patches, I don't have to ask anyone's permission, I don't have to guess - the source code is given, I don't even have to save my experiments anywhere - I can just start typing Elisp code in my scratch buffer and eval things in place. Similarly - I use Org-mode for a bunch of things that may sound absolutely unrelated - I consume HN, Reddit, Jira, GitHub, Slack and other content in org-mode derived buffers. Why? Again, because of bunch of APIs, functions and commands that Org provides. I can for example easily retrieve any HN thread and extract all the URLs people posted in comments, and inspect each in-place - takes me a keystroke. Or I can send the text to an LLM - without ever copying and pasting, without context switching, without losing focus. No other [popular] piece of software ever granted me such enormous power and liberation.
I am absolutely so grateful to my younger self for forcing me to grok Emacs and Lisp, and I will never understand the sentiment and the "reasoning" of people moving away from it (after being exposed to its absolute supremacy over plain text). Realistically, there's never switching away from Emacs for me, that, unless a better Lisp engine emerges at some point. And btw. I am a die-hard Vimmer. I use vim motions everywhere - system wide. They permeate my editors/IDEs, web browsers, terminals, and yes, even Emacs. And I use Neovim as well - it works well when I need to reach for it - like I said: it's not a comparison.
A common reason for breakage is/was:
- Neovim changes some API (deprecating, ...).
- User upgrades Neovim and theres some incompability, OR user upgrade plugin and that plugin assumes a much newer version of Neovim. (I've often seen Neovim plugins "mandate" either the latest stable Neovim or even HEAD).
1. Neovim has been including some popular plugins (or at least their functionality domain) in the past few years. This obviates the need for plugin-for-$THING, and reduces breakage.
2. ISTM that the pace of (new) plugin development in the Neovim-sphere has slowed down.
I can remember removing vim-commentary (from tpope) a while ago because Neovim included something like it in the main distribution. Granted, that specific plugin never broke because it uses the stable viml API.
No such thing exist in neovim (or at least in times when I was using it), so that churn never ends. Also I find, that neovim ecosystem is concentrated on one (very productive) developer in an unhealthy manner - folke often takes time off and half the packages one uses stands still.
But in the end, while I like neovim, I also find that emacs ecosystem has better ideas - which-key, embark do not stop to amuse me (I will not comment on whether it is a good thing for a text editor). I also do not like lua and actively dislike the experience of debugging and configuring neovim with it (maybe less of an issue with LLM these days).
In my experience, running in a terminal absolutely adds a bunch of rendering/performance issues and all kind of surprising failures with hotkeys.
> No such thing exist in neovim
neovim has been doing that too. Plugin manager (vim.pack), treesitter stuff, LSP management, completion, comments, etc.
> which-key
neovim also has this.
> neovim ecosystem is concentrated on one (very productive) developer in an unhealthy manner
folke has nice stuff, but I find a lot of it is largely unnecessary and bloated. The only thing I use is his which-key, and there are alternatives, such as mini.clue.
I used it more than I use emacs, but I agree with the assessment of doom emacs vs neovim.
I hope with these new built in alternatives that will change.
It’s a bit sad Neovim has stolen the thunder from the original work of Moolenaar & co. My guess is that neovim will splinter itself down the line further again once lua stops being attractive, while vim & Emacs will keep chugging along for another half century.
It's like a willful exercise in ignoring systems thinking. With Emacs every package tends to be designed with Emacs itself in mind, packages like consult, vertico, marginalia etc all built on Emacs' facilities improving not just the package itself but the overall experience of using Emacs, intentionally so.
The Neovim ecosystem is a bit like a dozen architects each designing a room in a house with total disregard for the layout of the house. A very common experience I had, and I never even used many plugins, was that when something was updated often something else would break. An update in the completion engine would cause some weird quirk with the lsp backend, etc.