This seems destined to go the way of emacs. This is always what happens when an idealistic perspective wins out over a practical one in a development team.
In emacs, the only missing part is that perhaps nobody has already written the elisp that makes it do whatever task you are asking for.
emacs is a smallish program written mostly in C that defers to a scripting language for nearly everything, and it ships a bunch of code in that scripting language that does all the work of being an editor. You can look at that code using the editor itself, and you can change that code using the editor itself. It's insanely flexible and extensible; see e.g. advice [0], and most modules provide meaningful hooks for you to add your own code.
All the IDE/editor behavior is just code. If it's compiled and baked into your IDE, fixed, unchanging, then if there is any behavior you don't like, you better hope the dev included a knob that lets you tweak it, or you have a lot higher barrier to making your editor work the way you want it to.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Ad...
Spending a few hours to configure it to your liking. In fact if you start atom and wait 6 seconds for it to start just once a day then twice wait 3 seconds for a new window you will in the same time frame have waited 8 hours for atom to start.
Hilarious. Emacs is one of the most successful programs of all time in my book. If I ever made an editor I'd pray every night that it'd be at least half as successful as Emacs.
Also, emacs is one of the most successful text editors so I'm not sure I get your comparison.
Also, surely it's not that hard to switch languages? In my experience all languages are essentially the same.
That's the problem: you don't seem to have enough experience.
