[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:03:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
> On 10/18/2015 11:35 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Wanting to use one language is, IMHO, a poor choice for wanting to
>>> completely swap out a language. I am opposed to Guilemacs, not only on
>>> technical grounds, but also because elisp is essential to Emacs (and
>>> not just an optional extension system), and I want its implementation
>>> to live alongside the rest of the Emacs core code.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea to separate the Elisp
>> implementation more from the Emacs core code. It provides a
>> well-documented interface between the two: hacking the C code in Emacs
>> remains a considerable inside job and is not documented on its own.
>>
>> So I consider this a strength rather than a weakness of the GuileEmacs
>> proposition in the long term.
>
> I disagree.
Then we disagree.
> Integrating the interpreter and the editor makes integrated changes
> easy. It also makes elisp releases synchronous with Emacs ones. I
> don't think a strong library separate here gives us anything useful.
>
> Consider my recent change to add finalizers to elisp. I saw a need for
> the feature and just implemented it directly in Emacs. What would the
> equivalent be in a guilemacs world?
You'd have used GUILE's guardians, and could have done this as an ELPA
package with a GUILE component. No recompilation required for an end
user.
> We'd have to go to all that trouble for what, exactly? A cleaner
> internal API? I don't buy it. Guilemacs has other disadvantages:
> currently, Emacs supports _only_ elisp as a first-class extension
> language. Guilemacs would invite people to write Emacs extensions in
> Scheme, JavaScript, and whatever else Guile ends up supporting, which
> will create fragmentation. A unified elisp ecosystem is a strength.
I don't consider options a problem.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, (continued)
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Paul Eggert, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Daniel Colascione, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/19
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/10/20