
No. This is exactly the sort of talk that turns people off from Emacs. You can use it as "just an editor." Indeed, read the GNU Emacs Manual. It almost entirely describes "just an editor." An excellent editor. The user needs to consult the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual only if extending Emacs is desirable.
Comments like this one suggest that Emacs is designed only to be programmed and that if the user does not program it, the user is "working against its design." This is just as false as saying that a Vim user who writes no VimScript is working against Vim's design. No, the user who doesn't program the editor is...using the editor. As designed.
You can, sure - sometimes we all do, when we need to debug a faulty package, we run it with the -Q option. I've been working for many years with people who use Emacs, have many friends who use Emacs, have mentored complete newbies and regularly discuss advanced topics - I have yet to meet someone who uses Emacs as is - with no customizations whatsoever. In fact, if I meet anyone who does that, I would very much be interested in learning their rationale, and perhaps even try to question their mental or emotional state.
Vim on the other hand, is very different in this, there are in fact plenty of users who do use it with zero customizations, daily.
> read the GNU Emacs Manual.
Okay. Let's do it... M-x info-emacs-manual - the very first two sentences - "Emacs is an advanced, extensible, customizable, self-documenting editor. This manual describes how to edit with Emacs and some of the ways to customize it." The third paragraph right there, at the very top, already explicitly says: "For information on extending Emacs, see Emacs Lisp". Five words pertaining extensibility in just three opening paragraphs, against only a couple of cognates of "editor".
What the heck are you even trying to argue here? Rephrasing your point doesn't change the underlying fact - Emacs is first and foremost an "extensible editor", not "an editor that can be extended (if desired)" - the emphasis is on "extensible", not on the "editor". That's what sets it apart from literally any other tool that gets used as "just an editor".
If regurgitating the factuality engrossed in the manual, ardently or otherwise, turns some people off from Emacs - so be it, like I already said before - it's probably for the best. Better for them, better for the Emacs community.
I started to learn emacs in 2006 after a friend show it to me in it's no-window version in a OS X Teminal. We were at the time art students and most of us didn't have programing education. Some people were playing a bit of advanced flash or Max (proprietary Pure Data sound processing), but most of us were doing performing art, sculpture, sound or painting.
Honestly, I have been so motivated by what I discovered, that, the learning curve hasn't been so bad. The folkloric keyboard shortcuts were easy to memorize and the software never failed me. I stopped using Text Edit and the horrible .rtf format and I learned that plaintext was surely more appropriate to write poetry. And wait what is it? Markdown?
I started to open mp3s in text mode and grep into videos. It was really exciting. It was possible to open incredibly huge files in text mode, and the computer was still usable. Wait... Why common browsers slow the machine down when you try to open Gmail then?
I discovered a land of wonder full of funny animals, meaningful laws texts (I mean GNU license) and documentation to read until the end of your life.
In 2008 I ordered GNU Emacs Manual 16th edition with a tee shirt, the reference card is still on my desk.
This piece of software is usable, accessible, documented, and it is still possible to use it 30 years after it's creation. Let's be honest: what is the aim of having a fast-learning-curve if you learn tools that you won't use in 2 years. If the tool is a bit hard to learn but we'll designed, it maybe worth the effort.