[sourcepluck]

What is better, from your experience?

I'm a happy Emacs user, but think having more options is great, and I've delved into some Common Lisp and certainly am eager to learn more. So I'm thrilled to see Lem continue to be developed.

[stackghost]

Emacs is "better" only because it has more features at present, and is somewhat more mature.

But emacs remains replete with bugs, the performance leaves a great deal to be desired, the UI locks up if you update your packages because the whole thing is single-threaded, and emacs lisp (the language) quite frankly sucks, a lot.

Lem is not very mature and has a lot of sharp edges but already in this state I can see that it will eclipse emacs if it continues its current trajectory.

[sourcepluck]

Agree with the other responder, largely. I've been bothered a few times by Emacs locking up, but never enough to be actually upset about it. Bugs, I don't see it, it is very very solid for me, I can't remember the last time something didn't work as expected. Hmmm.

Still very Lem-curious, though!

[iLemming]

Oh come on. Emacs is not that buggy. For a piece of software that's been developed for over forty years it's quite surprisingly stable. Most of the "bugs" I see are due to some tighter integration between different packages - someone upstream would change something that inadvertently breaks things somewhere else. It doesn't happen that often.

Also, Elisp isn't really that bad. Well, sure, Common Lisp of course is a lot nicer language, and of course, not having any good concurrency story doesn't add any points, still, Elisp isn't so horrendous.

That being said, I do really hope Lem would get traction, and people start building plugins for it. Alas, realistically I'm not sure how feasible that would be. Replicating anything like Org-mode, with tons of extensions may take many years. Lispers however are known for their tenacity and ingenuity, who knows, maybe it wouldn't take too long.