Re: Changes for emacs 28

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Or does "convert vanilla emacs in a "doomed like" experience" means 
   >"without using Doom Emacs, by doing everything by oneself"?  In that 
   >case it's not wrong, it is ridiculous.  Almost as ridiculous as if he 
   >had written "it would have taken me more time to develop Emacs by 
   >myself than to develop Visual Studio by myself".

   If a software we develop require a complex layer like doom (which could
   be seen as a big set of patches) to be "attractive" for many users. 

Emacs definitely doesn't require a complex layer like doom /
spaceemacs.