It's not like Emacs doesn't deprecate or change anything. It's not like its feature set froze in the 60s. And it's not like it doesn't document how to turn on CUA bindings, or Windows or OS X-compatible bindings, or have special builds or distributions where these are defaults. If you want C-c, C-x, C-v, you can have it. Today. In many distributions, by default. The keybindings are not the main issue either way in how "usable" a tool like Emacs is. If you think they are, you're missing the entire point of how Emacs is special regarding UIs.
I can throw the bullshit rhetoric right back at you: You think absolutely nothing was better in the 60s? That modern IDEs lost nothing compared to the tools of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Why isn't Emacs like Borland? Why isn't Emacs like Visual Studio? Why isn't Emacs like Eclipse? Why isn't it like Mosaic, QuickBasic, Coldfusion? There are reasonable answers to these questions, and they'll tell you also why Emacs isn't like whatever you want to compare it to today.
Maybe Emacs already occupies a local maximum, "a middle ground", taking some of the best compatible ideas from the times it's been alive in. Vi another local maximum. IntelliJ or VSCode, others - but emphasis then on local, and I hope you like retraining.
The problem is not keybindings or what decade its metaphors exist in, it's people see Magit or Org or whatever high-level fully-integrated tool, and want just that. And you don't understand that is an outcome of a path that really does require the whole philosophy to ingest into your workflow. But you don't want to learn the philosophy, you just want to 10x crush git or whatever. No, it won't happen. There's all sorts of dumbass metaphors in in this thread now, but in the end Emacs is garden, not a hammer or a workbench or an oscilloscope or whatever. You get out proportion to what you put in, you work with it not just use it.
Shit's just gonna get faster. You need to find ways to live with it, not copy it. Talk to your fathers-in-law.
I can throw the bullshit rhetoric right back at you: You think absolutely nothing was better in the 60s? That modern IDEs lost nothing compared to the tools of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Why isn't Emacs like Borland? Why isn't Emacs like Visual Studio? Why isn't Emacs like Eclipse? Why isn't it like Mosaic, QuickBasic, Coldfusion? There are reasonable answers to these questions, and they'll tell you also why Emacs isn't like whatever you want to compare it to today.
Maybe Emacs already occupies a local maximum, "a middle ground", taking some of the best compatible ideas from the times it's been alive in. Vi another local maximum. IntelliJ or VSCode, others - but emphasis then on local, and I hope you like retraining.
The problem is not keybindings or what decade its metaphors exist in, it's people see Magit or Org or whatever high-level fully-integrated tool, and want just that. And you don't understand that is an outcome of a path that really does require the whole philosophy to ingest into your workflow. But you don't want to learn the philosophy, you just want to 10x crush git or whatever. No, it won't happen. There's all sorts of dumbass metaphors in in this thread now, but in the end Emacs is garden, not a hammer or a workbench or an oscilloscope or whatever. You get out proportion to what you put in, you work with it not just use it.
Shit's just gonna get faster. You need to find ways to live with it, not copy it. Talk to your fathers-in-law.