Oh man. I'm embarrassed to say I've been using emacs for almost 40 years and it probably accounts for 80% of my screen time.
I wonder how many people know emacs predates gnu-emacs? I remember being skeptical of open source until I saw what gnu emacs could do. Then I got slightly more skeptical when I looked at the code ;-)
My entire software dev career was using emacs nearly 100% of the time. Originally it was on tops-20 (about 1981) and it was the TECO based emacs. (someone will correct me but I think Stallman was involved in the TECO version at MIT) Then the unix version used an abomination called mlisp. I briefly used EINE on lisp machines. Once Stallman got gnu going in earnest the first thing seemed to be emacs and elisp. I've been retired for a few years now so I don't type at emacs nearly as much. I feel crippled typing this into a text box in the default UI on a chromebook. Once I found control and meta on the keyboard it was all finger macros.
Anyway, I didn't do much customizing and never got used to vi when I was forced to use it. I don't think I liked the modefulness of vi. Yeah, emacs isn't very unix-y, but the unix-y text editor is ed. You kids get offa my lawn.
I got less enamoured of GNU when I started reading glibc. It works and it's solving for a complex set of build constraints and so on, but wow, it is not what I'd type.
Software people are hilarious. Wow, I sure hate using this amazingly working and workable product because I don't like what the source code looks like! I'm so glad there's an alternative that looks prettier!
Hilarious, huh? For a free software project whose literal philosophy is the freedom to read and study the source code, they sure don't make it easy. They should improve that if they don't want people to thank god for the existence of musl. Whatever understanding of libc that I've got is thanks to musl.
Your own issues comprehending the source code do not change that the source code is free to read, free to study, and free for many other things. And also quite easy to find.
Or, as the kids these days like to put it, "skill issue tbh".
So? Musl is still lightyears ahead of glibc in terms of being easy to understand. You can actually open up the git repository, find a random function definition and actually understand what it's doing. In seconds. Even the makefile is easy to understand. I was even able to understand the musl-gcc machinery and adapt it for my needs. Musl is so good it makes GNU stuff like GCC startfiles easier to understand than GNU's own documentation.
Skill issue? I have no doubt I could understand glibc if I was willing to pour enough time into that task. That's just the thing: I'm not willing. I have better things to do. Mercifully, I don't have to. Because musl exists.
Me? I lost a finger in the great key-binding wars of the late 80s. Like I said... if you make it to your deathbed with all 9 fingers, you're not trying hard enough.
I wonder how many people know emacs predates gnu-emacs? I remember being skeptical of open source until I saw what gnu emacs could do. Then I got slightly more skeptical when I looked at the code ;-)