Qiantan Hong <qhong@mit.edu> writes:


1+ for the elisp side.

Here are a few more things to think about:

Looking forward or Looking Back?

Most of the Web's "web apps" are written in JS, but I suspect much of
that will also fall outside the bounds of what RMS calls "ethical JS".

At the same time, having  a "web in emacs extension language" might
allow us to imagine, invent, and create a whole new class of
collaborative interactions that the so-called mainstream Web might never
think of or create -- and in that sense, a prototyping/extension
language that aligns with elisp might serve us better.

In thi scontext, I'd also like to point at the Nyxt browser which uses
parenscript  (Lisp that compiles down to JS) as an  another example of
using Lisp to script the Web.

https://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/
>> On Aug 29, 2020, at 10:26 PM, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Just curious - in what ways is JS worse then Elisp? 
> There’re lots of other arguments, e.g. homoiconicity, typing (js does lots of
> unreasonable type casts)… but in this context, I think the most important
> point is that Emacs and Emacs Lisp give one of the most flexible and
> self-descriptive programming system. If something is implemented in
> Emacs lisp, we get M-x apropos, describe-function, describe-variable,
> they can be overrode by just eval-defun, and can be advised. Customizing
> or extending it is painless and trivial. However, those things become
> much harder if the package is implemented in JS.
>
>> I agree Option 1 would give more bang for your buck - at least initially. 
>> 
> I’ll take that. I imagine while implementing Web Extensions API for js
> it will be trivial to also bring those to Elisp too, so finally we not only
> have those JS browser plugins to run but can also develop plugins
> in Elisp.
>

-- 
♈ Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮