From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jesper Harder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Cool and Useful LISP for the .emacs file Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:22:46 +0100 Organization: http://purl.org/harder/ Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1068255012 5329 80.91.224.253 (8 Nov 2003 01:30:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 01:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 08 02:30:09 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AIHvV-0003jB-00 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:30:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AIIsc-0000IT-B9 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:31:14 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help X-Face: ^RrvqCr7c,P$zTR:QED"@h9+BTm-"fjZJJ-3=OU7.)i/K]<.J88}s>'Z_$r; List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:13937 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:13937 "Jody M. Klymak" writes: > My point was that the rut occupied by C, python, perl, etc is wide > and shallow compared to the rather narrow and deep rut occupied by > lisp. I'm not trying to say that lisp is a bad language, but, > adapting to new habits takes time. Well, languages like C or Java would be completely unsuitable as an Emacs extension language because they're non-interactive and static. If you couldn't extend Emacs interactively, then Emacs wouldn't really be fundamentally different from, say, vim. Python might be adequate. But it's less powerful than Lisp, so in that sense it would be a step in the wrong direction.