[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs Lisp's future

From: Eric Brown
Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:46:59 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.3.93 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> One such option is Guile-Emacs.  This presumably would give us a faster
> implementation (at least in theory, their bytecode is significantly
> more efficient), would give us an FFI, and would give us more manpower
> since we'd be benefiting from the work done on Guile.

My vote is for whatever brings emacs closer to an FFI that allows us to
e.g. generate emacs buffer content in whichever language(s) bests suits
the developer and the domain of the subject.

> And of course, if Guile's own manpower dries up, Emacs would be forced
> to keep supporting Guile, which is more work than supporting just Elisp.

I thought that Guile is the annointed extension language of GNU
projects. Perhaps if more GNU projects evolved into supporting Guile, it
would bring more critical mass and interest to bear on Guile.

I understand the reality that Emacs is developed largely by volunteer
effort. Speaking as a donor/FSF Associate Member, I believe that this
should be considered a strategic goal of FSF/GNU leadership.

A cynical reply to my comments would be "show me the code, contributions
welcome."  But without FSF/GNU's coordination and $upport, I fail to see
how Emacs will ever evolve beyond the efforts of Hemlock, Guilemacs,
Deuce, Climacs, and countless other well-intentioned projects that have
failed to take root due to scale of the effort required to make a port
of equivalent high functionality, quality, and portability.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]