Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Sam Steingold <sds@gnu.org>]

> * In message <200208042325.g74NPtM03391@aztec.santafe.edu>
> * On the subject of "Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile"
> * Sent on Sun, 4 Aug 2002 17:25:55 -0600 (MDT)
> * Honorable Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>     > We should extend Guile so that its mechanism for handling variables
>     > dynamically is up to the job; then we should use that mechanism for
>     > these variables.
> 
>     yeah - let's extend Guile to be a kind of Common Lisp.
> 
> I am talking about a small change in features that already exist.  The
> issue at hand is for features Common Lisp does not have.

such as?  dynamic (special) variables?

>     A lot of _really_ smart people contributed to the design of Common Lisp.
>     It is a shame that you want to throw away all that good work and
>     redesign everything from scratch.
> 
> You mean smart people like Guy Steele, who is also co-designer of Scheme?

You are missing the point, I am afraid.

Scheme _is_ a very nice language.  It is very well designed for the
purpose for which it was designed - CS education.

The problem with Scheme is that, without significant extensions (object
system, condition system, dynamic variables, multiple values, SETF &c),
it is not suitable for large projects like Emacs.

Yes, all such extensions can be done, and there are _several_ different
incompatible object systems for Scheme, i.e., Scheme is at the stage
where Common Lisp was 20 years ago, when there were several CL object
systems.

The whole point is that lots of thought went into things that CL _has_
and R5RS does _not_ have.
It is a shame that you want to discard all these design assets and
re-do all the great work that has already been done.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.3 GNU/Linux
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.