[LeoNatan25]

That "pool" of people "able" to "write" "extensions" is exactly the people you don't want touching your text editor, or any software for that matter. Anyone that has a psychological barrier to take a look at a language that they are not familiar with, let alone a framework or an ecosystem, is not someone that I want being anywhere near the software I use. In an ideal world, I wouldn't want them to be anywhere near the web I visit either, but that is a lost cause.

[foldr]

The quality of Atom extensions is good, so that's clearly not true.

Also, you are going nuts with the scare quotes. I don't even see what point you are trying to make with those.

[LeoNatan25]

> The quality of Atom extensions is good

That's debatable for the vast majority of them. "Clearly" is a strong word here. And certainly, regardless of how "good" they are, almost none are worth the hit in performance in the most basic of tasks for me.

[foldr]

Emacs Lisp is much less performant than a modern Javascript implementation. I don't see how choosing JS as the extension language raises any serious performance issues.

Extension quality is a bit subjective, sure. But if you are going to claim that emacs extensions are of higher quality because they're written in a more obscure language, then you should give evidence. That is not my experience.

[LeoNatan25]

Where did I make this claim about Emacs plugins? For me, editing performance trumps plugins.

[foldr]

If you weren't referring to the performance of plugins when you talked about the "hit in performance", then you are changing the subject from the quality of plugins to overall editor performance. I didn't say anything about that.

[LeoNatan25]

That was my point all along. The people that write extensions in this case are also the people "hacking" on the editor itself, and saying they (or web "devs" in general) are not performance conscious is an understatement to say the least.