> What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to.
I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here.
Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.
I'm not offended or insulted by what you said. I don't even disagree with most of it, except maybe how you're using the terms "complete" and "proper." Saying that something isn't complete or proper generally really isn't compatible with a claim of impartiality.
I really have no problem with criticism of Emacs (provided that it's true, and now that you've expanded a little, I think what you're saying is true), but if you feel that familiarity (whether everyone's or just someone's) really sets Emacs and Sublime Text apart, call it criticism! :)
I want to explain the terms again. First of all "not proper" or "incomplete" isn't the adjectives I've used for Emacs itself, but the GUI of Emacs. I did use proper in the sense of common GUI idioms and conventions, and I'm not a native speaker, so if you think that was not a right choice, you're probably right.
For the incomplete, again we are not talking if Emacs is complete or not, we are debating if Emacs is a "full gui app" or not, and since I don't think it is using gui facilities to full extent (and instead it just creates a basic gui window, shows some menus and prompt dialogs here and there, and then handles everything with it's own mechanisms like windows and buffers), it's not a "full gui app". Again, if you have a better word of choice for it than the words I chose, I'd be happy to accept them. Sorry it caused trouble more than it worth.
I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here.
Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.