In fairness to Emacs, this is a bit sour grapes on my part!
I have tried to go fully into the "Emacs mindset" (org-mode for everything, multiple pages of custom hydra keybinds etc.) a number of times and I always bounce off. I always feel there is some activation threshold that if I could cross it, I could enter editor nirvana.
I used to joke that the way I use Emacs is I open it, give the empty buffer a very meaningful look, C-x C-c, and open VS Code.
For whatever it's worth, I think in 2025 with good LLMs, Emacs is actually bliss. Even as a true believer, I would regularly think of customisations, and then sigh at the effort and not bother. Now, I just get an AI to help me write the Emacs Lisp which not only teaches me new things, but also gives me (in seconds) an upgrade to my productivity which will last forever. Not only that, but I am using LLMs in my editor to help write code to make using LLMs in my editor even easier, so I feel like I've simultaneously crossed two thresholds.
My story is a lot like yours, except swap the two editors. I decide I'm really gonna try Visual Studio Code this time. Everybody uses it, it's become the default editor for like every recent programming language... it must be better than what I'm using, right? Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong!
And then I fire it up and... it's not compatible with my muscle memory. Plus I can't just pop open a buffer and morph my editor into what I need for the task in a language I like. (There is considerable rigamarole involved in writing a Visual Studio Code extension; I tried.) I can't work with buffers the way I'm used to, it doesn't indent the way I'm used to... and unless I'm willing to limit myself with VSCodium, it's spying on me in a way I consider hostile. So I put it away and get what I need done in Emacs. I must've been through this cycle like, six times.
> The author's call is that we acknowledge this subjective side.
I think that acknowledging the subjective side is a necessary step to making more rational choices. If you don't know your motivations, you will be a motivated reasoner.
When you can add "I like this tech because it helps me build an identity I aspire to" as an item in the pros column, you realize you no longer have to.
> When you can add "I like this tech because it helps me build an identity I aspire to" as an item in the pros column, you realize you no longer have to.
But, for many of the cases of using-obscure-thing-instead-of-popular-thing, that's not a factor.
Not everything divergent is hipster impulse. Nor is everything about slotting yourself into a clique category in high school.
Which is why I asked for clarification on what was being said.
FWIW, I use a vintage ThinkPad mainly because I can type all day on it without problem. The serviceability is also nice. I also own a sleek high-end last-year's P1 and an X1, both of which I think would look more attractive in cafes and in some ways fit my ideal self-image better than the T520 that I choose to use instead. Currently, due to the inferior keyboards, I might use the P1 or X1 only if I need to do a startup meeting with a 20-something who doesn't already know I'm good despite being over-30. That choice would be the image one, and it's not about validation or aspirational identity, but pragmatic gaining of acceptance despite prejudice.
The title of the post here ("Choose tools that make you happy") is wrong.
I wrote "You can choose tools that make you happy" to mean "you have permission to use tech just because it makes you happy or triggers your curiosity", so that people don't waste their time coming up with false technical reasons why their technology choices are rational. It is not a command that you should choose tools entirely or mainly for affective reasons.
I'm describing the set of posts that jointly satisfy:
- The thesis is "tool X is superior to (Y, Z, ...)" or "X is a modern/practical choice".
- The argument is purported to be technical and rational.
- The arguments are fallacious and do not stand to rational scrutiny.
Where you can reasonably think that the author's actual reasons are affective, and they are trying to make rational arguments by backward-chaining from the conclusion and failing.
If an article is (jointly) written in green font, uses the word "the", and is fallacious and does not stand to rational scrutiny; that article is fallacious and does not stand to rational scrutiny.
This was the bane of my existence when I lived in Uruguay! Despite having the Accept-Language header set permanently to en_US, Google would constantly reset my UI language to Spanish, despite being logged in and having the account language set to English.
The worst offender was eBay which would machine-translate listings from English to Spanish.
My experience is that companies just don't value good technical writing. And a lot of managers are basically illiterate, so it's the blind leading the blind.
I have tried to go fully into the "Emacs mindset" (org-mode for everything, multiple pages of custom hydra keybinds etc.) a number of times and I always bounce off. I always feel there is some activation threshold that if I could cross it, I could enter editor nirvana.
I used to joke that the way I use Emacs is I open it, give the empty buffer a very meaningful look, C-x C-c, and open VS Code.