Maybe I'm just not getting it, but why is this better than going with straight LaTeX? Pandoc can be used to convert LaTeX to HTML. So why the need for an extra layer of complexity? Other than a reason to use a Lisp.
I am so sorry to hear that! My mother, also, was found with a tumor that we didn't know about for a long time. She fought as long as she could. She never gave up hope.
Doctors don't know everything. There are ways to fight, even natural ones. Fighting with anything is better than giving up. Hope is very powerful. Don't give up. Keep fighting.
Best wishes to you from one who has walked this road with another.
You may be in the minority in terms of the total number of users, but most of the Emacs developers will have the same mindset. Terminal-friendliness is a part of Emacs tradition. The developers would surely keep the ability to run Emacs in a terminal.
I must admit to having wondered why there is not a greater use of Lisp in window managers. Lisp would seem the ideal language to use for tweaking a desktop. Xmonad (in Haskell) seems to have taken most of the attention of keyboard lovers and tweakers, but Lisp would seem to me to be a better fit.
Why not write the window manager itself in Haskell (e.g., xmonad [1]) to take advantage of Haskell's type system, and provide extension points to allow users to tweak the desktop environment in the language of their choice -- for example, Scheme [2] or Python [3]?
Why not write the product in language X and then make it extensible via language Y?
Well... For one it wouldn't be the emacs of window managers.
If you want to go the full mile, you should go the full mile. Trying to do half a mile subset and hoping it is the right subset gets tiresome pretty quickly.
http://discuss.gohugo.io/t/web-based-editor/155
Hugo -- http://gohugo.io/