guile-emacs dead ?

guile-emacs dead ?

[William Xuuu]

Hi,

I found some discussions about guile-emacs by google, which seems very
exciting, 'cause i love scheme. While, there's really nothing on its
homepage. Is it dead ?

-- 
William

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[David Kastrup]

William Xuuu <william_xuuu@163.com> writes:

> I found some discussions about guile-emacs by google, which seems
> very exciting, 'cause i love scheme. While, there's really nothing
> on its homepage. Is it dead ?

I'd guess undead.  Bit rot.  The code base has not moved beyond Emacs
20.7, and there does not appear to be active development or interest
any more.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Niels Freimann]

David Kastrup wrote:

>The code base has not moved beyond Emacs
>20.7, and there does not appear to be active development or interest
>any more.
>
>  
>
doesn't that mean it is dead? ;-)

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[David Kastrup]

Niels Freimann <niels_freimann@yahoo.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>The code base has not moved beyond Emacs
>>20.7, and there does not appear to be active development or interest
>>any more.
>>
>>  
>>
> doesn't that mean it is dead? ;-)

Free Software never dies.  It still is a branch in the CVS of Emacs.
You can pick up development at any time.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Cor Gest]

Niels Freimann <niels_freimann@yahoo.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> >The code base has not moved beyond Emacs
> >20.7, and there does not appear to be active development or interest
> >any more.
> >
> >
> doesn't that mean it is dead? ;-)

Hardly, just that it occupies a separate ward and is on life-support
does not mean something is dead, it is just vegatating and annoying
the casual onlookers or something like that. ;-^)

Cor
-- 
He who disregards the Only True Editor or the Documentation strays far indeed
       (defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux"))) 
          If everything else fails try Reading The Frigging Manual
				     (loop (princ "Om mani padme hum"))

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Niels Freimann <niels_freimann@yahoo.de> writes:

> doesn't that mean it is dead? ;-)

if it is buried, surely someone is digging to find it (perhaps from the
other side of the planet -- which explains the wait ;-).

seriously, i'm one of the crackpots still interested in guile-emacs, but
am still struggling to pop the stack of related things to learn[1] about
before i feel competent enough to look into it.

thi


[1] i learn by doing (and failing and redoing);
    it is a pathetic method but not unenjoyable.

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[August]

On sön, 2005-02-06 at 22:58 +0800, William Xuuu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found some discussions about guile-emacs by google, which seems very
> exciting, 'cause i love scheme. While, there's really nothing on its
> homepage. Is it dead ?

I did the same observation some time ago. I think it's a great shame
because as a programming language Scheme is far superior to Elisp
(except maybe when it comes to execution speed). Elisp is bad at
information hiding (no file scope) and provides no local procedures,
which encourages programmers to write gigantic functions that are hard
to maintain. I would like to see GNU Emacs switch to Guile/Scheme
completely.

-- 
August

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Niels Freimann]

August wrote:

>I did the same observation some time ago. I think it's a great shame
>because as a programming language Scheme is far superior to Elisp
>  
>
languages like that aren't popular anymore. Look at java, it's something 
like a simplified c++, any C or C++ programmer can learn easily. This is 
what the people are intersted in.

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[August]

On sön, 2005-02-06 at 18:36 +0100, Niels Freimann wrote:
> August wrote:
> 
> >I did the same observation some time ago. I think it's a great shame
> >because as a programming language Scheme is far superior to Elisp
> >  
> >
> languages like that aren't popular anymore. Look at java, it's something 
> like a simplified c++, any C or C++ programmer can learn easily. This is 
> what the people are intersted in.

My impression is not that people using Emacs are afraid of the lisp
family of languages. For me it's hard to understand the reluctance to
learn new languages/paradigms. That's one of the joys of programming.
The industry clearly shows that the best designs never win (Ask any
programmer if he or she has heard of Oberon-2.) I guess many programmers
don't think of or compare the merits of different languages; they just
program in whatever language they are used to.

Some links:
http://www.amadeus-3.com/main_files/oberon2vsCPP.php
http://www.zel.org/oberon/fromctoo.htm
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/anon-ftp/Elegance.html

-- 
August

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Bruce Stephens]

William Xuuu <william_xuuu@163.com> writes:

> I found some discussions about guile-emacs by google, which seems
> very exciting, 'cause i love scheme. While, there's really nothing
> on its homepage. Is it dead ?

Probably.  My guess is that Scheme is too different to emacs-lisp to
be particularly practical.  I suspect you'd be better looking at
smaller improvements like Miles' lexbind branch of emacs, which adds
optional lexical binding.  Getting that into the main branch of emacs
would be very nice, I think.  Changing to a Lisp-1 like scheme seems
likely to involve lots of work for not much concrete gain, IMHO.

Re: guile-emacs dead ?

[Chris Smith]

>>>>> Bruce Stephens <bruce+usenet@cenderis.demon.co.uk> writes:

    > William Xuuu <william_xuuu@163.com> writes:
    >> I found some discussions about guile-emacs by google, which
    >> seems very exciting, 'cause i love scheme. While, there's
    >> really nothing on its homepage. Is it dead ?

    > Probably.  My guess is that Scheme is too different to
    > emacs-lisp to be particularly practical.  I suspect you'd be
    > better looking at smaller improvements like Miles' lexbind
    > branch of emacs, which adds optional lexical binding.  Getting
    > that into the main branch of emacs would be very nice, I think.
    > Changing to a Lisp-1 like scheme seems likely to involve lots of
    > work for not much concrete gain, IMHO.

What is the take on EdWin?
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EdWin
R,
C