[sdwisely]

I don't know that is bad.

Without Emacs, org-mode is just weird markdown.

The way it can quickly link between different types of unrelated content just doesn't make sense outside Emacs.

[enriquto]

> Without Emacs, org-mode is just weird markdown.

So, are you saying that the title of the article is bogus? Or that emacs is the only reasonable editor?

[zeveb]

> Or that emacs is the only reasonable editor?

Given the options, I think that a decent argument can be made that emacs is the best editor, and that it's unreasonable to use anything that the best — so yeah, one might argue that emacs is the only reasonable editor.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I wouldn't instinctively disagree.

[wowtip]

My take is Emacs is the best integrated text processing environment available. But I am not sure it would beat VI/VIM as an text editor.

I don't think most Emacs users could match a good VIM user in text editing speed, but then Emacs can do many other tasks that are hard to replicate in VIM, while being a more than good enough editor.

It is not so much which editor is better, rather what are the user's expectations.

To me this is obvious and has been probably been said a 1000 times before, but sometimes when reading threads about text editors, you would not think so.

[sdwisely]

Neither,

Emacs takes an everything and the kitchen sink approach and org-mode embraces that.

[afiori]

> just doesn't make sense outside Emacs

That is the entire point. If I can only use it inside emacs then I will only use it inside emacs.