[Jochim]

> I get it; this is maybe to please the newer/younger crowd

This seems to miss the point of these changes. If you're only concerned with your own workflow then almost any changes that you didn't specifically request are annoying. However, if you're concerned with the continued development/relevance of the program then it becomes clear that change must occur. Taking into account both existing user's concerns and barriers to entry for new users.

Many of emacs defaults are pretty awful at introducing users to the "emacs" way of doing things while also failing at easing unfamiliar users in.

[rightbyte]

Why should catering to non-users even be a concern? It is like these radio stations and tv channels that blend into the sameness blurb.

If the last emacs user press C-x C-c for the last time in whatever years that is not a failure.

[Jochim]

Where do users come from? People trying out the software and enjoying it. I'm quite glad that the emacs maintainers care about this, as I'm sure I've benefitted greatly from the contributions some of those people will have made.

Improving things that put new users off is often the same as improving things that annoy existing users. Keeping the spirit of the tool intact doesn't require doing everything the same way.

> If the last emacs user press C-x C-c for the last time in whatever years that is not a failure.

I disagree. It'd be just as much of a failure as emacs moving away from it's focus on extensibility/configurability. It's meant to be a useful tool, if no-one is interested in using it, then it has most likely failed at it's purpose.

On the current situation, after reading through the emacs-devel mailing list, it becomes clear that the author of this change - a long term user and contributor - was attempting to address an issue that had come up in his own workflow. He seemed interested in engaging with people who had concerns surrounding the change. The tone of the article is honestly embarrassing in comparison.