A comparison with emacs and vim would be nice.

A comparison with editors like micro https://github.com/micro-editor/micro or fresh https://github.com/sinelaw/fresh (discussed in the comments) would make more sense than one with vim and emacs. The shortcuts are CUA based. And to me these editors feel more like using GUI editor like sublime text for example. And that's nice.

While vim and emacs have their advantages which I don't want to discuss here, they are also the "big players" with their own philosophy, shortcuts and commands. Which is a hassle to learn when you're used to GUI editors.

Why not let a little space for users who don't want to re-learn how to edit a file ?

Emacs is not an editor, it's a text-based orchestrator - a live Lisp image that happens to ship an editor, where every function is introspectable, redefinable at runtime, and written in the same language. Any external tool becomes something you can wrap into one uniform interaction model - Emacs can control just about anything text-related in its computation vicinity and remote computers.

Emacs's closest competitor for such orchestration is not an editor. It is shell plus tmux plus fzf plus CLI tooling, and now agent harnesses. Those orchestrate fine, but they have no shared runtime and no shared language and the entire model feels clunky.

There's nothing analogous to Emacs that exists today, with the exception of maybe Lem, but this one doesn't have a comparable ecosystem of packages and the community [yet]. And nobody knows if it ever will. Even though it has real threads, the CL condition system, Quicklisp, and sane compilation - none of that helps against forty years of accumulation plus the network effect.