> But when I'm discovering the API, it's a gold mine.
Some of us are trying to tell you is that the Elisp manual is a
gold mine, too. If you see parts where it is not, report it.
Lisp languages are traditionally organized differently.
Thanks for the perspective. The parts where it is not is a gold mine is the amount of hops we have to do:
There is no manual entry where I see all these classified string functions at once, and "C-h d string" makes my emacs so laggy that I cannot use it, also most of the entries are irrelevant.
I guess you could argue that I'm not used to having to read big chunks of text to get the information I'm looking for, that's I think a valid criticism.
If you like some "overview by topic" tool, you yourself have
shown it can be built easily (in that "keep-lines" example).
Let's do that first and then think it it's still worth including
many new foreign words, not the reverse.
That's probably the path of least changes, I agree.
Design-wise I still think that Elisp would be a better language if it was properly namespaced, given the language itself does not support namespaces. But that's arguable even tho I think there are more strong points in favor of using namespaces than against it.