I hate to be one of those that harps on "why the downvotes," but I really would appreciate tips on how folks would plan on testing these claims. Just imagining that we could do better than some good pieces of software doesn't really do much to say that we can.
For example, people have been imagining faster than light travel for a long time. I realize these don't compare directly, as we have reasons to believe upper bounds on speed.
So, I am curious if we have reasons to believe that the upper bounds on editors and such is really that much higher. For inspiration, consider [1].
Same for typesetting. Take a look at most of the papers at [2] and tell me whether translating these to new languages is really necessary. (Though, note that I am not arguing against this. Just asking how we plan to know that "things are better now.")
For example, people have been imagining faster than light travel for a long time. I realize these don't compare directly, as we have reasons to believe upper bounds on speed.
So, I am curious if we have reasons to believe that the upper bounds on editors and such is really that much higher. For inspiration, consider [1].
Same for typesetting. Take a look at most of the papers at [2] and tell me whether translating these to new languages is really necessary. (Though, note that I am not arguing against this. Just asking how we plan to know that "things are better now.")
[1] http://youtu.be/1-dUkyn_fZA
[2] http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/preprints.html