From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: immanuel litzroth Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <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> <1271173887.6067.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <87ljcqqxoc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271239452 10675 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 10:04:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 12:04:09 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 1O1zS2-0000Gz-Mo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:04:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40086 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1zS1-00070N-IE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:04:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1zJv-0003ti-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:55:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40759 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1zJm-0003no-SF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:55:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1zJh-0007qX-Kh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:55:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:45339) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1zJh-0007pi-DS; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:55:29 -0400 Original-Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so3643258wwf.0 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:55:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qTM/ThrfaFfcupgjgJoVRjEsPpMoQEoprO01QF1WlVg=; b=uEGKetopypY3Km9Es772wAqEWA74IAnW36XTwu9XvWUYB3XpDbezD2gse6Kv/My7Tn LJEkpWpotj6+QUQVklK7jtQwvpfExSrz6L+N4wjj8wtHs0AXyEb/qhEL7ew1rv5SthdS uyoowznijz5EiBvJf5ErkH/4PVIkerOPHJVqs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WU+nQjtDwWZ01855ItqTg933x5Y0OcIA6HPiyaCLB0AlW4srItMhVWG4O36waG1mSn hxvYg2yp8WxAFtHl7ykchKq8rX7ysLIF2n06bpXvetDgWexBfn2fdCRRgc0Ewd1QrCVn /Mtdv4VVj47tzuNI0ANQ1yKW8O40pBQl67+5I= Original-Received: by 10.216.10.65 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:55:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ljcqqxoc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Original-Received: by 10.216.88.131 with SMTP id a3mr4821017wef.153.1271238927487; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:55:27 -0700 (PDT) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:123619 Archived-At: > Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing. =A0Common Lisp has its own focus. Common Lisp doesn't have a focus that I am aware of. It is the language that is most close to Emacs Lisp syntactically, and most emacs code that doesn't have editor specific stuff will run in Common Lisp & vice versa. > For an extension language, it is preferable to have a system where you > can read through the manual in one day and basically understand it The effort to "basically" understand CL is the same as the for scheme. More= over scheme has some exotic stuff like hygienic macros and continuations which a= re not stuff you "basically understand in a day". > Scheme is a smaller starting point than Common Lisp. So with a common lisp system you get: 1) compilation to machine code 2) standardized implementation of classes 3) structures, hashes 4) Exceptions With a scheme system you get 1) call-with-current-continuation Moreover if you really like emacs based on scheme why not go for edwin? Immanuel