From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:51:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1271173887.6067.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87vddmpw4s.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hbp2fwoi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrxrr4md.fsf@gnu.org> <3vsk8ecg6a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <873a0euot4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <873a0cyv3r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87aauiho3y.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <1271028837.6164.55.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1271102739.6067.38.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <8039yz34ka.fsf@tiny.isode.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271173900 871 80.91.229.12 (13 Apr 2010 15:51:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Bruce Stephens Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 13 17:51:39 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1iOo-00033m-Qp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:51:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36526 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1iOo-0008OZ-8K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1iOi-0008NX-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47961 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1iOg-0008Ml-LD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1iOc-0002gK-Sg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:30 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp151.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.151]:51403) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1iOc-0002eU-M1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:26 -0400 Original-Received: from relay25.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay25.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DEFA21B4F43; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by relay25.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: lord-AT-emf.net) with ESMTPSA id 585071B4EF0; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:51:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8039yz34ka.fsf@tiny.isode.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123576 Archived-At: We risk drifting into the topic of "general strategies for GNU" and away from "what could / should(?) Emacs do" so let's not make a long discussion of it but: On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 13:44 +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote: > I wonder. Looking at the list of Guile applications doesn't give me the > impression of a guile-using GNU ecosystem just waiting for Emacs to > join. Sure. The optimist's version of that observation is that, hey, it's a blank slate: pure opportunity, no legacy "baggage". The sky's the limit. > Wouldn't it be about as good (and probably less work), to give up on the > guile idea and evolve emacs lisp (with Miles's lexical-bind changes, and > (one hopes) multithreading, and maybe other things)? I dunno. Maybe. I'd guess that, no, that's not a good strategy. Four reasons come quickly to mind: 1) There are many more materials out there that teach Scheme than teach a novel spin-off of Emacs Lisp. 2) There are many and will continue to be many implementations of Scheme. Some of these implementations are the product of pretty intense R&D. No, they aren't all 100% compatible with one another - far from it - but it is easier to start with any one of those and make it more like the others than to, say, build better and alternative implementations of Emacs Lisp. 3) Scheme has features that we know make it a pretty good "multi-paradigm" language. Features like Scheme's macro systems, proper safe-for-space tail recursion, etc. are pretty good to have. It would be easier to just use those existing features than to try to retrofit them into Emacs Lisp. 4) Using Scheme, you can can leverage third party Scheme code. There isn't a huge amount worth using but there is a decent amount. There are the SRFIs. There is SCSH (the Scheme shell). For a long-term investment, I'd put my money on Scheme rather than an ad hoc offspring of Emacs Lisp.