From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:03:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87a5hqq4v3.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87sevj9b50.fsf@jeremybryant.net> <871q33rj7v.fsf@dataswamp.org> <86ed73qhly.fsf@gnu.org> <87frrjoryg.fsf_-_@dataswamp.org> <86wmkuq60j.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25125"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:7X4vcxBQj2/FFF2Hm6SU4bJH6Gg= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 05 19:37:48 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sb1eW-0006N2-9r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:37:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb1dd-00051k-Ve; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:36:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb17Z-0007Ew-Ds for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:03:46 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb17X-00069w-Og for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:03:45 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sb17V-0001ln-ED for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:03:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:36:52 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322399 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > There's nothing more natural than an editor analyzing text > in a buffer. Why it frustrates you is beyond me. Sure, as is analyzing chemical substances in chemistry. And it is well known that instead of using machines and well-known methods from the outside to do the job, the chemists are swimming around in the substances mucking around with individual molecules giving explicit instructions what should happen for each case? Oh, no, all computing is the same, basically, we have of course specific problems and applications here, but instead of doing the old thing we should move up one level of abstraction and be there instead, and focus not on "getting the job done" but instead getting it done in a way that is much better than what we - to a large extent - have been doing so far. Everyone has a problem domain with specific characteristics that isn't the same as do stuff on the detail level, "everyone" doesn't do that if that is what you thought. > Emacs Lisp is not a general-purpose programming language. It doesn't matter what it is, it can be better, we should aim for that. > It is a language for implementing Emacs and Emacs > extensions. Thus, comparing it with Python is, in general, > simply wrong. Yes, Python is incomparable to Emacs Lisp and would probably win quite even against the collective Lisp world, I'm afraid. Lisp would probably loose to some other languages as well. > We can compare a few specific aspects, but not the languages > as a whole, and definitely not their success rate: the scope > of Emacs Lisp is limited to Emacs, which is orders of > magnitude more narrow than the scope of Python (or any other > general-purpose programming language). Emacs is the bastion of Lisp, if we care about Lisp we should do what we can to make Elisp more competitive altho we should focus on getting better, and not compare us to other languages as we are way too far behind in many areas, I'm afraid. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal