[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile in Emacs
From: |
christian.lynbech |
Subject: |
Re: Guile in Emacs |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:45:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1.95 (gnu/linux) |
>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
RMS> Common Lisp is extremely complicated and ugly. When I wrote GNU Emacs
RMS> I had just finished implementing Common Lisp, and I did not like it
RMS> much. It would bloat Emacs terribly, and documenting it would be hard
RMS> too.
Fair enough, I happen to disagree but I respect that you have real-life
experiennce in the matter.
I do not understand the point about documentation though. Why would it
be harder to document a common lisp based emacs than a scheme based
emacs? I do not expect that we would like to make a brand new common
lisp from scratch but rather to start out from an exisiting
implementation, just as we would with scheme.
RMS> Scheme is elegant, and it is a better direction to move in.
I will challenge the claim that emacs-on-scheme would be any less
bloated than an emacs-on-cl. Sure, core scheme is smaller than core
common lisp, but once you have finished adding all of the stuff you need
to get a working application, I believe you will have reached pretty
much the same level of bloat.
RMS> Since we have our own Scheme implementation, we should use that one.
RMS> If it has a serious disadvantage, we should do something about that.
RMS> There are various things that might be right to do, but simply
RMS> disregarding it in the case of Emacs cannot be right.
I am personally mostly worried about Thomas' points about getting scheme
and emacs lisp to coexist. I just cannot see any evolution of emacs fly
in the real world if it involves a clean cut away from the existing base
of emacs lisp libraries. How we would ever get all developers and all
users to back up such a move is beyond me ("all" used here in the sense
of "enough to form a critical mass").
(Incidently, there is still something called GNU Common Lisp, even if
not updated since 2005)
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | christian #\@ defun #\. dk
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- address@hidden (Michael A. Petonic)
- Re: Guile in Emacs, (continued)
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Bruce Stephens, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, joakim, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Christian Lynbech, 2010/04/13
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Thomas Lord, 2010/04/13
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Christian Lynbech, 2010/04/13
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs,
christian.lynbech <=
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Thomas Lord, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Bruce Stephens, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, christian.lynbech, 2010/04/15
- Re: Guile in Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2010/04/14
- RE: Guile in Emacs, Drew Adams, 2010/04/14
- Re: Guile in Emacs, David Kastrup, 2010/04/15
- Re: Guile in Emacs, christian.lynbech, 2010/04/15
- Re: Guile in Emacs, David Kastrup, 2010/04/15
- Re: Guile in Emacs, christian.lynbech, 2010/04/15