Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Emanuel.

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 00:55:48 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Jeremy Bryant wrote:

> > Lisp is the most powerful and elegant of programming
> > languages. If you want to see how powerful and elegant
> > a programming language can be, you need to learn Lisp.
> > It will give you standard for measuring other languages.

> Ah, I don't know, that kind of boasting. Powerful and elegant
> are both immeasurable things, well, maybe in electrical
> engineering one can measure it.

> > Calling Emacs Lisp "python-like" is derogatory to Emacs
> > Lisp. Python has some of the characteristics that make Lisp
> > superior, but not all of them.

> Okay, then everyone should know this is a controversial thing
> to say. No one, or very few, would recommend Emacs Lisp as an
> alternative to Python 2024.

> It will sounds like we are a bunch of fanatics boasting from
> our own echo chamber were, inside it, we all are fantastic and
> high on Lisp.

> Lisp's superiority is a myth.

> To me it is more like a drug :)

To understand the opposite point of view, read one of Paul Graham's
essays at https://paulgraham.com/icad.html, where he describes 9
novelties introduced by Lisp into programming in 1958, and how most, but
not all, of these have since been adopted by lesser languages.

My own view is that Lisp indeed is one of the top languages, but that
Common Lisp is too big, and thus too difficult, to learn for most
programmers.  For those who succeed in learning it, their productivity
will be enormous whilst using it.  Maybe this productivity could be
matched by other "strange" languages (Haskell, perhaps?), but not by
"normal" languages such as C, C++, Java, Python or perl.  I think it a
pity that a moderate sized Lisp, something around the size of Emacs Lisp
without the cl-* extensions, never made it as a general purpose language
alongside the above.

> -- 
> underground experts united
> https://dataswamp.org/~incal

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Christopher Dimech via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

Alan, we both opened a discussion on tangents.



> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2024 at 8:03 AM
> From: "Alan Mackenzie" <acm@muc.de>
> To: emacs-tangents@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other
>
> Hello, Emanuel.
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 00:55:48 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > Jeremy Bryant wrote:
>
> > > Lisp is the most powerful and elegant of programming
> > > languages. If you want to see how powerful and elegant
> > > a programming language can be, you need to learn Lisp.
> > > It will give you standard for measuring other languages.
>
> > Ah, I don't know, that kind of boasting. Powerful and elegant
> > are both immeasurable things, well, maybe in electrical
> > engineering one can measure it.
>
> > > Calling Emacs Lisp "python-like" is derogatory to Emacs
> > > Lisp. Python has some of the characteristics that make Lisp
> > > superior, but not all of them.
>
> > Okay, then everyone should know this is a controversial thing
> > to say. No one, or very few, would recommend Emacs Lisp as an
> > alternative to Python 2024.
>
> > It will sounds like we are a bunch of fanatics boasting from
> > our own echo chamber were, inside it, we all are fantastic and
> > high on Lisp.
>
> > Lisp's superiority is a myth.
>
> > To me it is more like a drug :)
>
> To understand the opposite point of view, read one of Paul Graham's
> essays at https://paulgraham.com/icad.html, where he describes 9
> novelties introduced by Lisp into programming in 1958, and how most, but
> not all, of these have since been adopted by lesser languages.
>
> My own view is that Lisp indeed is one of the top languages, but that
> Common Lisp is too big, and thus too difficult, to learn for most
> programmers.  For those who succeed in learning it, their productivity
> will be enormous whilst using it.  Maybe this productivity could be
> matched by other "strange" languages (Haskell, perhaps?), but not by
> "normal" languages such as C, C++, Java, Python or perl.  I think it a
> pity that a moderate sized Lisp, something around the size of Emacs Lisp
> without the cl-* extensions, never made it as a general purpose language
> alongside the above.
>
> > --
> > underground experts united
> > https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
>
> ---
> via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
>

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> [2024-08-05 23:04]:
> To understand the opposite point of view, read one of Paul Graham's
> essays at https://paulgraham.com/icad.html, where he describes 9
> novelties introduced by Lisp into programming in 1958, and how most, but
> not all, of these have since been adopted by lesser languages.

I have read it, of course articles by Graham are very insightful.

> My own view is that Lisp indeed is one of the top languages, but that
> Common Lisp is too big, and thus too difficult, to learn for most
> programmers.

My personal view on Common Lisp at the time when I was learning it was
that it was childish simple as compared to previous programming
languages I knew. I even got impression that people who loved Guile,
Scheme, Emacs Lisp, Common Lisp are bragging over the childish easy
language. Learning was not hard, it was pleasure, and I was feeling
like coming back home.

Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Immanuel Litzroth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2701 bytes --]

Matthias Felleisen has done work on comparing programming languages:
https://jgbm.github.io/eecs762f19/papers/felleisen.pdf
Also some of the practical aspects of using Python vs other languages have
been documented here:
https://haslab.github.io/SAFER/scp21.pdf
i


On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:03 PM Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> Hello, Emanuel.
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 00:55:48 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > Jeremy Bryant wrote:
>
> > > Lisp is the most powerful and elegant of programming
> > > languages. If you want to see how powerful and elegant
> > > a programming language can be, you need to learn Lisp.
> > > It will give you standard for measuring other languages.
>
> > Ah, I don't know, that kind of boasting. Powerful and elegant
> > are both immeasurable things, well, maybe in electrical
> > engineering one can measure it.
>
> > > Calling Emacs Lisp "python-like" is derogatory to Emacs
> > > Lisp. Python has some of the characteristics that make Lisp
> > > superior, but not all of them.
>
> > Okay, then everyone should know this is a controversial thing
> > to say. No one, or very few, would recommend Emacs Lisp as an
> > alternative to Python 2024.
>
> > It will sounds like we are a bunch of fanatics boasting from
> > our own echo chamber were, inside it, we all are fantastic and
> > high on Lisp.
>
> > Lisp's superiority is a myth.
>
> > To me it is more like a drug :)
>
> To understand the opposite point of view, read one of Paul Graham's
> essays at https://paulgraham.com/icad.html, where he describes 9
> novelties introduced by Lisp into programming in 1958, and how most, but
> not all, of these have since been adopted by lesser languages.
>
> My own view is that Lisp indeed is one of the top languages, but that
> Common Lisp is too big, and thus too difficult, to learn for most
> programmers.  For those who succeed in learning it, their productivity
> will be enormous whilst using it.  Maybe this productivity could be
> matched by other "strange" languages (Haskell, perhaps?), but not by
> "normal" languages such as C, C++, Java, Python or perl.  I think it a
> pity that a moderate sized Lisp, something around the size of Emacs Lisp
> without the cl-* extensions, never made it as a general purpose language
> alongside the above.
>
> > --
> > underground experts united
> > https://dataswamp.org/~incal
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
>
> ---
> via emacs-tangents mailing list (
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
>


-- 
-- A man must either resolve to point out nothing new or to become a slave
to defend it. -- Sir Isaac Newton

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3759 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other)

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> [2024-08-05 19:31]:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Please, everybody, take the Lisp vs Python argument off this
> > list, it is off-topic here. If you must discuss this, please
> > use the emacs-tangents@gnu.org mailing list instead.
> 
> Sure, but we are allowed to discuss how to make Elisp better?
> 
> Since Python has had enormous success, and Lisp hasn't - or if
> it had, it lost it - it might be a good ide to analyze what
> they (Python) did good.

Do you mean making Elisp better in the eyes of the world, or technically for Elisp users?

There are obviously many Elisp users, worth enough for developing it
technically, improving it, that is fine and good. And developers are
doing it. We are here in society of Elisp users.

For the eyes of the world, does it matter? I do not see how it does
matter.  Last time I checked, there must be millions of Emacs
users. Not all of them are loud and talking. I just guess that
majority does not even know about Elisp. But there is large number of
Emacs users, as there is large number of GNU/Linux users, and growing.

They may open editor and write something. They may not know about
Elisp, though they soon find out, so it is surely growing. Watching
our mailing lists I can see new users coming.

Comparisons like Python vs Elisp are useless as it is just interesting
for discussion and some language wars in old style.

What is useful is practical program, software, which is made and
provides final benefits.

A single program, no matter the language, can provide huge success.

For more technical insight into the war general Lisp vs Python:
http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html

>     Apply on data in data structures, not on data as it appears in
>     Emacs buffers.) But how ever well one does, it is gonna be _a
>     lot_ of of moving point around in Emacs Lisp, so don't worry :)

Statements were exaggerated. You have various data structures, and if
you need to operate on buffer, operate. Personally I operate on
hashes, and lists, and vectors, etc. Not on buffers. I cannot find
your statement universal.

> Example of problem from my favorite part of Emacs, ispell.el:
> 
> (defun ispell-mime-multipartp (&optional limit)
>   "Return multipart message start boundary or nil if none."
>   ;; caller must ensure `case-fold-search' is set to t
>   (and
>    (re-search-forward
>     "Content-Type: *multipart/\\([^ \t\n]*;[ \t]*[\n]?[ \t]*\\)+boundary="
>     limit t)
>    (let (boundary)
>      (if (looking-at "\"")
> 	 (let (start)
> 	   (forward-char)
> 	   (setq start (point))
> 	   (while (not (looking-at "\""))
> 	     (forward-char 1))
> 	   (setq boundary (buffer-substring-no-properties start (point))))
>        (let ((start (point)))
> 	 (while (looking-at "[-0-9a-zA-Z'()+_,./:=?]")
> 	   (forward-char))
> 	 (setq boundary (buffer-substring-no-properties start (point)))))
>      (if (< (length boundary) 1)
> 	 (setq boundary nil)
>        (concat "--" boundary)))))
> 
> Moving point around, looking, searching, seeing or not seeing.
> This is boring and error prone to write, and error prone to
> take over from someone else, or return to after x years.

Come on. All programming is about looking, searching, and of course it
can be boring and error prone, I remember machine language, of course
it is error prone, there is no programming language not error prone.

> You don't think in terms of the problem, or the solution for
> that matter, you are just somewhere in the buffer and
> according the the map you are completely lost!

That is why some developers are lost, some are okay with it.


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other)

[Emanuel Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2741 bytes --]

Jean Louis wrote:

>> Sure, but we are allowed to discuss how to make
>> Elisp better?
>> 
>> Since Python has had enormous success, and Lisp hasn't - or
>> if it had, it lost it - it might be a good ide to analyze
>> what they (Python) did good.
>
> Do you mean making Elisp better in the eyes of the world, or
> technically for Elisp users?

How nice to hear from you, thanks for helping me out that
other time, so okay, this old and boring discussion tho - I'm
just gonna answer this one message - okay - ... - really,
ONE message, I saying.

First, what I mean "better": as a programming language,
as technology.

> There are obviously many Elisp users, worth enough for
> developing it technically, improving it, that is fine and
> good. And developers are doing it. We are here in society of
> Elisp users.

Unfortunately, in terms of features, we have been falling
behind majorly, and not just compared to powerhouses like
Common Lisp and Python.

We have also not optimized Emacs for speed and convenience, we
did not learn from the smartphone generation.

Yes, The developers have done _a lot_ but they have not been
the type of leaders who use their surroundings to make them
better, and become even better themselves. They want to do
everything themselves and if you are just a few bunch of guys
doing that, that's gonna be a problem.

> For the eyes of the world, does it matter? I do not see how
> it does matter. Last time I checked, there must be millions
> of Emacs users.

Haha :) When did you check Jean, and how, and what was the
exact result please?

There are more Emacs users now than in the 90s and early 00s
but relative speaking Emacs position is way down compared
to then. This was bound to happen, maybe it is healthy even,
it doesn't bug me, but I want to have all the features
everyone else has, or close to it, unfortunately we don't.

> Not all of them are loud and talking.

Rumors has it there is 230 members on this list and they don't
all like Emanuel's messages. But I think everyone likes Jean's
messages so it evens up :)

> I just guess that majority does not even know about Elisp.
> But there is large number of Emacs users, as there is large
> number of GNU/Linux users, and growing.

Elisp is a fringe, fringe sport for the computer elite.
Even Lisp as a whole are a pretty marginalized bunch.

> Comparisons like Python vs Elisp are useless as it is just
> interesting for discussion and some language wars in
> old style.

Impossible to compare, unfortunately (for us). But I still
like Elisp more.

For example, can you do _this_ in Python? (Well, yes! I'm sure
they can.)

Blog post coming up really soon now as the saying goes ...

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/bad/meta/screenshot/grad.png


[-- Attachment #2: grad.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 10746 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 61 bytes --]


-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other)

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> [2024-10-24 00:13]:
> Jean Louis wrote:
> 
> >> Sure, but we are allowed to discuss how to make
> >> Elisp better?
> >> 
> >> Since Python has had enormous success, and Lisp hasn't - or
> >> if it had, it lost it - it might be a good ide to analyze
> >> what they (Python) did good.
> >
> > Do you mean making Elisp better in the eyes of the world, or
> > technically for Elisp users?
> 
> How nice to hear from you, thanks for helping me out that
> other time, so okay, this old and boring discussion tho - I'm
> just gonna answer this one message - okay - ... - really,
> ONE message, I saying.
> 
> First, what I mean "better": as a programming language,
> as technology.

I am here only to poke on you ;-)

But I can't replace Emacs Lisp with something else. I have got
interface and it is sufficient, I need not think of plethora of
elements. We manage employees, documents, accounting, reports of all
kinds, I mean it is huge. I have switched from Perl to Emacs.

** Statistics 

╔════════════════════════╦════════╦══════════════════════════════╦═══════╗
║ Total number of people ║ 242546 ║ Total Hyperdocuments         ║ 62993 ║
╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
║ People in last week    ║ 108    ║ Hyperdocuments in last week  ║ 216   ║
╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
║ People in last month   ║ 261    ║ Hyperdocuments in last month ║ 841   ║
╚════════════════════════╩════════╩══════════════════════════════╩═══════╝

All that above is managed through Emacs interface.

So if Python is better, it is for me personal issue, not technical
issue. I have got no oversight and capacity to measure what is better.


-- 
Jean


---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other)

[Emanuel Berg]

Jean Louis wrote:

> But I can't replace Emacs Lisp with something else. I have
> got interface and it is sufficient, I need not think of
> plethora of elements. We manage employees, documents,
> accounting, reports of all kinds, I mean it is huge. I have
> switched from Perl to Emacs.

Oh, you are not replacing it alright. No one said it was bad
or distasteful. It is very good and many, including I, like it
and use it every day. So relax Jean, you are completely
normal ;) You have been good to Elisp and Elisp has been good
to you.

No, I think the frustration, IIRC, ws because

(1) No one else was enthusiastic about making Elisp better, in
    part for its own sake, to make och try to make Emacs
    a Lisp powerhouse up there with CL and Clojure (and
    others); and

(2) even more so, I was frustrated with that boasting,
    functional programming is superior (absolutely not true),
    Lisp is built-in superior to other languages, Lisps syntax
    is an advantage, Lisp programs are short and elegant (yes,
    sometimes, before they get too long, e.g. gnus-sum.el [13
    239 lines], Lisp programmers have a better mental
    understanding of their programs compared to other
    programmers and their sorry languages.

Truthfully and honestly, 2024, one would put it like this:

- if you care about/for Lisp, do it - that is, however, the
  only reason to do it, if you don't care for it, there are
  many alternatives, don't do Lisp, or do just a little
  for culture.

- if you care about/for Lisp, but not Emacs, don't do Elisp,
  there are again many Lispy alternatives that are,
  marginalized as they may be, better that Elisp.

But if you care for Emacs, if you care for Lisp, and maybe the
bigger picture with the community, eco-system around it, yes,
why not? That attitude/boasting bugs me but that doesn't mean
Elisp is bad.

> ** Statistics 
>
> ╔════════════════════════╦════════╦══════════════════════════════╦═══════╗
> ║ Total number of people ║ 242546 ║ Total Hyperdocuments         ║ 62993 ║
> ╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
> ║ People in last week    ║ 108    ║ Hyperdocuments in last week  ║ 216   ║
> ╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
> ║ People in last month   ║ 261    ║ Hyperdocuments in last month ║ 841   ║
> ╚════════════════════════╩════════╩══════════════════════════════╩═══════╝
>
> All that above is managed through Emacs interface.

That's exactly right, that's how you do it, Jean! Digits and
order bring fortune to _everyone_.

Here is a screenshot of it:
  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-data/jeans-hypertable.png
  
I also try to make an honest buck now and then.
Did you hear of the next installment of Police Quest,
Sierra-On Line's old franchise, that is coming for Emacs?

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/sneak/police.png

> So if Python is better, it is for me personal issue, not
> technical issue. I have got no oversight and capacity to
> measure what is better.

It is better in the sense, give 100 programmers 100 programs
to write, then do the same to 100 other programmers but the
same task, one group uses Python and one uses Elisp, what will
happen with 100% certainty is that the Python guys will

- complete their task (all 100? possible)
- complete many, many more programs
- their programs will be much better
- they will do it faster, i.e., less man hours
- and with much less frustration during the process

PS. EOD, can't do this anymore, okay? :) DS.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal


---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Joel Reicher]

Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:

> No, I think the frustration, IIRC, ws because
>
> (1) No one else was enthusiastic about making Elisp better, in 
>     part for its own sake, to make och try to make Emacs a Lisp 
>     powerhouse up there with CL and Clojure (and others); and

To my mind that's a bit like saying make a mouse trap better by 
making it more like a bear trap.

By all means make elisp better, but don't compare it to languages 
that are used for different things.

> (2) even more so, I was frustrated with that boasting, 
>     functional programming is superior (absolutely not true), 
>     Lisp is built-in superior to other languages, Lisps syntax 
>     is an advantage, Lisp programs are short and elegant (yes, 
>     sometimes, before they get too long, e.g. gnus-sum.el [13 
>     239 lines], Lisp programmers have a better mental 
>     understanding of their programs compared to other 
>     programmers and their sorry languages.

Different languages are good for different things. Saying one 
language is better than another only makes sense if they are being 
used for the same thing, and only in the context of that thing.

I like Lisp, but I wouldn't use it for everything.

Regards,

        - Joel

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1091 bytes --]

Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:

> Yes, The developers have done _a lot_ but they have not been
> the type of leaders who use their surroundings to make them
> better, and become even better themselves. They want to do
> everything themselves and if you are just a few bunch of guys
> doing that, that's gonna be a problem.

Whom do you see as developers here?

Given that melpa and elpa and elpa-nongnu exist where outside devs do a
lot of work, you can’t just mean the core programmers, because they
obviously don’t do everything by themselves.

So you would have to mean the package authors.

But that includes people who learned from vim (and got many vim-users to
switch to Spacemacs or Doom). Who learned from language servers. Who
created full-blown IDEs as well as lean, continuously built Make
integration and flycheck linting.

So you can’t really mean these, either.

As a result I’m at a loss as to whom your comment actually matches.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> [2024-08-06 22:53]:
> Flamewars begin when discussions employ inflated descriptions of a language

I like it.

> For instance, a statement like "The great power of the Lisp language makes it
> ideal for other purposes, such as writing editing commands" can be seen as
> provocative. Irking those who prefer other languages or who have experienced the
> limitations of Lisp in their work.

Isn't praise for each programming language found in their books?!

Nothing wrong about it.

> Words like "great power" are subjective and can be interpreted differently by
> different people. Some might view them as an accurate reflection of Lisp's
> capabilities, while others might see them as an overstatement, leading to
> disagreements.

The context remains relevant, particularly regarding great
power. There are very few editors like Emacs, and that context is
still applicable today.

> To avoid flamewars, documentation should strive for balanced and
> factual descriptions, providing historical context.

I was thinking fun started, and now you wish to avoid it.

> A balanced documentation example would be
> 
> Emacs Lisp (Elisp) is a dialect of the Lisp programming language, chosen by
> Richard Stallman for its flexibility and his familiarity with it from projects
> like the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) and the Lisp Machine Operating
> System at MIT.

That above is Boring, come on, here is better version:

Emacs Lisp (Elisp) is not just any programming language; it's the
beating heart of the ultimate text editor, Emacs. Chosen by the
brilliant Richard Stallman for its unparalleled flexibility, Elisp
empowers users to customize their editing experience in ways that are
simply impossible with other editors. Stallman’s expertise, honed
through groundbreaking projects like the Incompatible Timesharing
System (ITS) and the Lisp Machine Operating System at MIT, solidified
Elisp as the backbone of Emacs, transforming it into an editor that
transcends mere text editing. With Elisp, users tap into a world of
infinite possibilities, tailoring Emacs to fit their every need,
making it the best choice for anyone serious about productivity and
creativity. Why settle for less when you can harness the power of
Elisp in the finest editor ever created? Emacs truly sets the
standard!

Emacs is not just an editor; it is a revolution in the world of text
manipulation, a sophisticated powerhouse that redefines the very
concept of what an editor can be! Its design, meticulously crafted
with unparalleled attention to compatibility with Unix, catapults it
to a level of portability that no other editor can even dare to
approach.

With the incredible capabilities of Elisp, the very lifeblood of
Emacs, users have at their fingertips a relentless, supercharged tool
for writing editing commands that eclipses the functionality of all
other editors combined! The possibilities are limitless—commanding
every aspect of your workflow with elegance and precision that’s
simply unattainable in any other editing environment.

While other programming languages might boast their unique strengths,
they pale in comparison to the sheer versatility of Emacs and
Elisp. Why settle for mediocrity when you can wield the best? Emacs is
not merely suited for specific tasks; it is a universal toolkit that
transforms the mundane into the extraordinary, empowering every user
to achieve feats of productivity that would leave mere mortals in awe.

Emacs is, without a doubt, the ultimate editor, the crown jewel of
software development, a perennial favorite for those who value true
mastery over their editing experiences. Embrace the greatness of
Emacs, and you will never look back!


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2876 bytes --]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> Emacs Lisp (Elisp) is not just any programming language; it's the
> beating heart of the ultimate text editor, Emacs. Chosen by the
> brilliant Richard Stallman for its unparalleled flexibility, Elisp
> empowers users to customize their editing experience in ways that are
> simply impossible with other editors. Stallman’s expertise, honed
> through groundbreaking projects like the Incompatible Timesharing
> System (ITS) and the Lisp Machine Operating System at MIT, solidified
> Elisp as the backbone of Emacs, transforming it into an editor that
> transcends mere text editing. With Elisp, users tap into a world of
> infinite possibilities, tailoring Emacs to fit their every need,
> making it the best choice for anyone serious about productivity and
> creativity. Why settle for less when you can harness the power of
> Elisp in the finest editor ever created? Emacs truly sets the
> standard!
>
> Emacs is not just an editor; it is a revolution in the world of text
> manipulation, a sophisticated powerhouse that redefines the very
> concept of what an editor can be! Its design, meticulously crafted
> with unparalleled attention to compatibility with Unix, catapults it
> to a level of portability that no other editor can even dare to
> approach.
>
> With the incredible capabilities of Elisp, the very lifeblood of
> Emacs, users have at their fingertips a relentless, supercharged tool
> for writing editing commands that eclipses the functionality of all
> other editors combined! The possibilities are limitless—commanding
> every aspect of your workflow with elegance and precision that’s
> simply unattainable in any other editing environment.

This lacks a note about being improved¹ over decades by diverse groups of
expert hackers who care for their tools ☺

¹ better word lacking. "Honed" is already used in another place ☺

> While other programming languages might boast their unique strengths,
> they pale in comparison to the sheer versatility of Emacs and
> Elisp. Why settle for mediocrity when you can wield the best? Emacs is
> not merely suited for specific tasks; it is a universal toolkit that
> transforms the mundane into the extraordinary, empowering every user
> to achieve feats of productivity that would leave mere mortals in awe.
>
> Emacs is, without a doubt, the ultimate editor, the crown jewel of
> software development, a perennial favorite for those who value true
> mastery over their editing experiences. Embrace the greatness of
> Emacs, and you will never look back!

This calls for becoming a blog post!
And being recorded as a youtube video.

(maybe with the subtitle: you may find hyperbole here. The fun is real!)

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2024-08-07 02:11]:
> > So the Emacs website and documentation should not sell elisp short.
> 
> "marketing", "marketing", "marketing",
> "marketing", "marketing", "marketing".
> 
> FWIW, a description, accurate or inaccurate, isn't
> necessarily marketing.  We're not selling Emacs or
> Elisp.  There's no market involved.

Emacs is product, and can be well sold, it is power text editor, with
too many features and extensibility. Perfect software product. Manage
anything, compan, clinic, hospital, memberships, calculations,
spreadsheets, plethora of features.

It is sellable. License allows it.

Just sell.

I could not purchase GNU CD-ROMs back in time, it was too much money
in the Wittwer library in Stuttgart, but later I purchased GNU/Linux
where Emacs was marketed and sold. So I did buy it.

Nobody forbid selling Emacs.

I can do supermarket point of sales on Emacs. Or clinic
management. Anything.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Drew Adams via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

> > > So the Emacs website and documentation should not sell elisp short.
> >
> > "marketing", "marketing", "marketing",
> > "marketing", "marketing", "marketing".
> >
> > FWIW, a description, accurate or inaccurate, isn't
> > necessarily marketing.  We're not selling Emacs or
> > Elisp.  There's no market involved.

GNU's not selling Emacs or Elisp.  They're not being
produced for exchange/sale by GNU.  It's not commodity
production.

(But you can still buy a printed manual from GNU, I assume.)

> Emacs is product, and can be well sold, it is power text editor, with
> too many features and extensibility. Perfect software product. Manage
> anything, compan, clinic, hospital, memberships, calculations,
> spreadsheets, plethora of features.
> 
> It is sellable. License allows it. Just sell.

It's not developed for sale by GNU; that's the point.
That's not the purpose/motivation behind its production.

You can develop your own enhancements for it with an
eye to selling them, i.e., with that as their purpose.
But the motivation behind the development of GNU Emacs
isn't to sell it.  It has great use value and zero
exchange value - like the air we breathe.
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2024-10-23 23:26]:
> > > > So the Emacs website and documentation should not sell elisp short.
> > >
> > > "marketing", "marketing", "marketing",
> > > "marketing", "marketing", "marketing".
> > >
> > > FWIW, a description, accurate or inaccurate, isn't
> > > necessarily marketing.  We're not selling Emacs or
> > > Elisp.  There's no market involved.
> 
> GNU's not selling Emacs or Elisp.  They're not being
> produced for exchange/sale by GNU.  It's not commodity
> production.
> 
> (But you can still buy a printed manual from GNU, I assume.)
> 
> > Emacs is product, and can be well sold, it is power text editor, with
> > too many features and extensibility. Perfect software product. Manage
> > anything, compan, clinic, hospital, memberships, calculations,
> > spreadsheets, plethora of features.
> > 
> > It is sellable. License allows it. Just sell.
> 
> It's not developed for sale by GNU; that's the point.
> That's not the purpose/motivation behind its production.

https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull23.html#SEC28

Watch, GNU system was sold for years on CD-ROMs. I have seen it sold
on the shelves of the bookstore. I just guess Emacs was included.

> You can develop your own enhancements for it with an
> eye to selling them, i.e., with that as their purpose.
> But the motivation behind the development of GNU Emacs
> isn't to sell it.  It has great use value and zero
> exchange value - like the air we breathe.

License does not prohibit selling. Motivation we know. But it is
sellable product, just as many other products.

In your country it may not be common, software is however sold in all
forms in other countries. I have purchased Red Hat Linux in past,
Emacs was on the CD-ROM and advertised.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Drew Adams via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

> License does not prohibit selling. Motivation we know.
> But it is sellable product, just as many other products.

Yes.  It's about the motivation - how and why a
product gets produced.  That you can sell something
doesn't mean it's developed _for_ sale/profit.

And it's not about whether it's _legal_ to sell
something.  You can sell anything, legal or not,
if you find a buyer for it.  (The buyer might not
legally own it as a result, but that's beside the
point.)

Selling something doesn't make it a commodity and
its creation commodity production: production for
exchange.

If the development of GNU Emacs were dependent on
its sale, then you might have an argument.  It's
not, and you don't.

Your own livelihood might (or might not) depend
on your sales of Emacs.  But that alone doesn't
affect the development of Emacs - its how and why,
its raison d'etre.
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2024-10-24 00:21]:
> If the development of GNU Emacs were dependent on
> its sale, then you might have an argument.  It's
> not, and you don't.

Development of GNU was dependent of money, and that money arrived from
various sources, obviously also from sale.

So it's product. I know it better, you don't. 8-)

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

✡️🛡️ Proudly standing with Israel, a nation rooted in history and culture. Let's condemn hatred and promote understanding.

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> [2024-08-15 13:34]:
> No proof, method, or data to back anything up. Not then, not
> now. One should just accept that Lisp is the best programming
> language with no investigation required, case closed.

Finally, reason from your keyboard typing. Before your fingers start a
rebellion and declare themselves the new rulers of your thoughts! 🖥️👑

:-)

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> [2024-08-15 10:05]:
> Madhu wrote:
> 
> >>> Comprehension of the user's program reaches its greatest
> >>> heights for Lisp programs, because the simplicity of Lisp
> >>> syntax makes intelligent editing operations easier to
> >>> implement, while the complexity of other languages [...]
> >>
> >> Sorry, but we don't have _any_ of those advantages :)
> >
> > While the basic sexp structure sull seems the same, now to
> > understand the "modern code" you have to refer understand
> > and familiarize yourself and read documentation of the
> > constructs in the other languages before you can
> > understand elisp.
> 
> I have 29 656 functions (of those are 8040 interactive) if
> this script is correct [1]
> 
> For 'emacs -Q', or if you just run the script, the result is:
> 8559 functions (3014 interactive)

I got 983 in my Emacs Lisp directory. So I do not fund 30,000
functions in source too much really.


---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Johan Myréen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

>
> And then came the whole AI craze. 2017 Tensor Flow 1.0 was released and
> 2018 popularity of Python started going off the roof, but not in one step,
> but still incrementally (though less constant than before 2008).


The boost in Python's popularity from 2017 onwards is due to the NumPy and
SciPy libraries, which were used for "Data Science". The AI craze did not
start until later.

One of Python's strengths is the availability of useful libraries
("batteries included") combined with a simple syntax, which enable people
to get their job done.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 792 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3651 bytes --]

"Abraham S.A.H." writes:

> Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> I didn't say that. You know why? Because I didn't mean it.
>> It doesn't take much experience to do cool things fast
>> in Python, it is a fact.
>
> I agree to disagree, Emanuel!  Sorry, but I do not think “Python is
> a generally better programming language”.  Perhaps Python is very good
> in some aspects but not in general, and I know Python better than any
> other language.
>
> I think that Python is popular in  the sense of “there are more Python
> programmers than most other languages”.   And I think “In the software
> industry, technical  merits of a  programming language do not  make it
> popular.”!  Java and C and JS  didn't become popular only due to their
> technical merits.

While this is true (with the caveat "only" which you do include), there
is actually something strange about how Python spread.

When looking at how Python spread: compared to other languages and
before Python 3 (2008) it was the odd one out. It was slowly but
constantly growing in popularity. It didn’t have one killer feature, but
it was growing organically from genuine fans:
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/python/

In 2008 it had a boost in popularity and then actually has been losing —
in 2013 when I switched on to Guile,¹ many others seem to have done the
same. The TIOBE rating of Python *halved* between 2013 and 2014.

And then came the whole AI craze. 2017 Tensor Flow 1.0 was released and
2018 popularity of Python started going off the roof, but not in one
step, but still incrementally (though less constant than before 2008).

Before 2008 and after 2018 there has been something not seen in other
languages. Other languages have a cycle of an event pushing popularity
up, then waning popularity. Python didn’t.

It grew more continuously and that may point to an actual quality of the
language.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

¹ why and how I switched from Python to Guile Scheme:
  https://www.draketo.de/py2guile
  
> Do you know Python and Lisp and acknowledge their difference?

I do. Since 2013 I’ve been using Guile as my main hobby-language.
Between around 2006 and 2013 I’ve been using Python almost exclusively —
and a lot, 2011 to 2013 full-time.

> For  removing  a  statement  in   Python,  use  `kill-line`  (C-k)  or
> `kill-whole-line`.  For removing a  statement in Lisp, use `kill-sexp`
> (C-M-k).

This often moves the parentheses to the previous line, so the diff
you’ll be looking at to review the change will show a changed line and a
deleted line.

> You  are using  your  own  presumptions to  reason  out, and  convince
> others.  Your presumptions are not mine,  and your facts are not facts
> to me.

Either they are facts or they are not. Please don’t go mixing this up.

You cannot say “these are not my facts” without leaving the grounds of
logic.

The Tiobe index I linked above is a fact, but its interpretation is not.
Whether it is genuinely better can’t be established as fact, but that it
spread differently from other languages is clearly visible.

That it doesn’t take much time to do things fast in Python is a fact,
proven over and over again, but the interpretation *why* that is and
whether it means that Python is a better language is not.

And all that still doesn’t mean that I prefer it (why else would I use
Guile instead and write in an emacs-devel channel — now emacs-tangent?).

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Jean Louis]

* Abraham S.A.H." via "Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel@gnu.org> [2024-08-07 21:59]:
> > Emacs-w3m is from Japan <3
> 
> As I said, perhaps only in Japan.
> 
> However, as an Asian, I know no university in my country or neighbour
> countries teaching Lisp. Just a few pages of history and no more.
> But they teach C, Java and Python.

But what happens after, they wander into the wide world, armed with
their Java and Python knowledge, only to discover the secret society
of Emacs enthusiasts—those mythical beings who can summon text-editing
magic with a mere key combination. That is how people come to Emacs
Lisp, they get tired of what they already know.

Once they discover the joy of Emacs, the circle is complete.

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Abraham S.A.H. via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists]

Indeed

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)

Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> [2024-08-09 10:20]:
> Abraham S.A.H." via "Emacs development discussions. wrote:
> 
> >> It doesn't take much experience to do cool things fast in
> >> Python, it is a fact.
> >
> > I agree to disagree, Emanuel!  Sorry, but I do not think
> > "Python is a generally better programming language".
> 
> Devel time faster than in Lisp, is what I'm saying.

I believe that the speed of development is influenced by how the
programmer has structured the foundational components.

I believe Lisp-like languages are ideal for this purpose. Unlike many
other languages, which can make speeding up development a challenge,
Lisp-like languages make the process much easier and more
straightforward.

I am sorry that you haven't arrived at that understanding yet, but
it's great that you grasped it in another language.

What works, works.

I would use software in any language if it gives me product or service
I need.

> Maybe one could have a Lisp that also was as fast or almost as
> fast, if one focused on that aspect.

I gave you references, Lisp is so much faster than your praised babies.


---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)