Again, I am going to try to push through this, but the first impressions I’m getting here is that emacs is abandonware. Tier-1 menus that don’t work. Documentation that’s totally untested, inconsistent and full of dead links and weirdly dated terminology (“visit new file”?) This software has not cared at all about new users’ first impressions in a really, really long time, if ever.
Emacs falls into the category of tools that require some up-front time investment to learn before it becomes useful.
(I have some half-formed thoughts on how the field of UX tends to conflate "easy to use" with "easy to learn to use" or "easy to use without upfront effort" and that a lot of the most powerful software tools available are considered hard only because you need to learn to use it up front, but that's tangential.)
@suetanvil I have some sympathy for that position in general, but this is Stockholm Syndrome. There’s a difference between “this is challenging to learn because it is a big, complicated tool” and “this is challenging to learn because the documentation is missing, outdated or wrong”.
Less Stockholm and more sunk cost fallacy. I've made the investment and am reaping the benefit; it's possible that better design would have reduced that cost but it's too late for me now.
Also, apologies if I come across as an Emacs partisan. I have lots of complaints about it but it also works pretty well for me.
(FWIW, I've had no problem getting docs, so I'm wondering if it's a packaging issue on your end. Of course, I also just Google it most of the time so it may just be that.)
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!