You need not to defend Emacs (saying this per your attitude on the thread). Your argument does not defeat the argument about the lack of proper command-and-movement composition. This neither diminishes nor augments the value of your favourite editor, so no need for religiousness here.
The article claimed: 'Emacs and Atom don’t have commands for deleting to the end of a file or a paragraph — even when they have commands to move to those places. But in Vim, if you can move to a location, you can delete to that location.'
I delete to the end of the file all the time in GNU Emacs. mark, move, delete. It's just a different model.
> Your argument does not defeat the argument about the lack of proper command-and-movement composition.
It's not a 'lack'. Like an airplane does not lack a proper steering wheel.
> This neither diminishes nor augments the value of your favourite editor, so no need for religiousness here.
I use a lot of GNU Emacs and I think it is the best editor for a lot of purposes. There is a lot to admire. For example the many very sophisticated and well written contributions.
At the same time I, as a Lisp expert, don't like the technical base of GNU Emacs. Single threaded, poor Lisp dialect, just now support for lexical binding, not object-oriented, ugly UI, complex key bindings, ...
For editing Lisp code I prefer to use the LispWorks editor. It is also an Emacs, but written in Common Lisp and based on the Hemlock Emacs of CMU. But this does not have the capabilities of GNU Emacs outside of Lisp coding.
From a usability and coolness view, Zmacs is still way ahead. But no longer practical - unless one could use it for some extensive Lisp project, which would justify its use.
Thus, I have no overall favorite editor. GNU Emacs is great, but it has too many and very diverse problems. I use it, but not without frustration.
Emacs uses regions for that. I mark the position, move in any way I want, kill-region c-w.