From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:47:19 -0700 Message-ID: <1271209639.6067.81.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87hbp2fwoi.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrxrr4md.fsf@gnu.org> <3vsk8ecg6a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <873a0euot4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <873a0cyv3r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271209654 24995 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 01:47:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bruce Stephens , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christian Lynbech Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 03:47:32 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 1O1rhR-00008a-Qv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:47:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48452 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1rhQ-0002oD-Ov for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1rhL-0002o8-1p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42348 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1rhI-0002ny-K2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1rhG-00035b-My for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:20 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp191.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.191]:39100) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1rhG-00035V-Gz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:18 -0400 Original-Received: from relay19.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay19.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B92B91B466F; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by relay19.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: lord-AT-emf.net) with ESMTPSA id 091B41B4011; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:47:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 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:123605 Archived-At: On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 21:13 +0200, Christian Lynbech wrote: > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord writes: > > >> Wouldn't it be about as good (and probably less work), to give up on the > >> guile idea and evolve emacs lisp (with Miles's lexical-bind changes, and > >> (one hopes) multithreading, and maybe other things)? > > Thomas> I dunno. Maybe. I'd guess that, no, that's not a > Thomas> good strategy. Four reasons come quickly to mind: ... > > Wouldn't a reasonable alternative to using a scheme implementation be to > use a Common Lisp ditto? I would have a hard time arguing conclusively that that would be unreasonable. Scheme is tidier and more compact and yields more interesting subsets. I think that Scheme currently enjoys way more R&D than CL. So I'd be on Scheme over CL for the general GNU extension language (not just for Emacs). And I don't suppose that legacy Emacs lisp code should in any way be allowed to hold back or mess up the design of a GNU extension language. But there are are good arguments both ways and I think you are right that a CL "ditto" might be a good alternative. > And wouldn't that be a much closer fit > semantically to the current Emacs Lisp dialect? Yes, I think it would. I'm free enough in my current position in life that I can afford to be cavalier and say "Eh, who cares about all that tonnage of extant Emacs lisp code. What's the Right Thing if we discount that code?" I can't sell you or anyone on that attitude and it might just be flat out wrong. It's just, at least, a position worth considering in the "big picture". > I kind of hear you suggesting ditching all of the existing Emacs Lisp in > favour of starting over from scratch with scheme. Yeah, I am, but I don't see anyone who is an obvious candidate to take on such a huge job with no guaranteed success at the end. As I said (and the scare-quotes are significant): it's something that "someone" should do. > While it will be easy to list examples of existing libraries few will > miss, emacs killer features such as gnus or org-mode still represent > significant investments that are not easily reproduced from scratch. Sure. But don't misunderestimate the rapidity with which a programmer fluent in both Emacs lisp and Scheme can sit down and port those programs from one language to the other. (The one that really scares *me* is calc.el!) -t > > > ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- > Christian Lynbech | christian #\@ defun #\. dk > ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- > Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual. > - petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)