Why do we spend time on Emacs on Guile?

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

gerd.moellmann@t-online.de (Gerd Moellmann) writes:
> No, I still think basing Emacs on Guile is a very bad idea.

And I thought I was alone :-)

I really don't see the point in spending a lot of time on 
"Emacs on Guile" which IMHO seems like a pretty academic project.  

Emacs Lisp has allowed users and hackers to implement zillions of
brilliant add-on packages; what benefits (besides the academic ones)
will switching to Guile give us?

As Richard usually points out, our efforts should be on changes which
have a benefit for the users of emacs, rather than the convenience of
the "emacs hackers".  AFAICS, switching to Guile has _ZERO_ benefits
for the emacs users.

What about a poll...:

How many of the members on emacs-devel plan to switch to Guile once it
is available?

Why would you do that?

Have you ever programmed in Guile/Scheme ?  How much?

I doubt very many existing Emacs Lisp packages will be converted to
Guile, so what are the performance issues of not doing so if Emacs
uses Guile internally?  

From the discussions on the list, it seems Guile's data model doesn't
really fit very well with Emacs Lisp anyway.

++kfs