From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:52 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <561B3038.8090405@cs.ucla.edu> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83vbadp69k.fsf@gnu.org> <87egh1kx83.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83r3l1p4fn.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8rpkvsu.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83pp0kq0h7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444622429 31550 80.91.229.3 (12 Oct 2015 04:00:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 04:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 12 06:00:17 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlUHW-00008y-W7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:00:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52489 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlUHW-0007oH-Cw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlUHP-0007kz-9n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlUHL-0004qw-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:50527) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlUHF-0004ow-Es; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 23:59:57 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADBD160CBF; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Eb99wtLu1Y9q; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD89160E14; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id UxITPVNoHYeE; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DF31160CBF; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:59:53 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: <83pp0kq0h7.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191301 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I think any language which is "better" (i.e. is known by more > programmers) will have the same problems. For October 2014 the TIOBE Programming Community index gives the following ratings for the ten most popular programming languages: 19.543 Java 16.190 C 5.749 C++ 4.825 C# 4.512 Python 2.561 PHP 2.462 VB.NET 2.292 JavaScript 2.247 Perl 1.825 Ruby Since 2002, the #1 language in this somewhat-volatile index has always been either C or Java. So, by this measure at least, the only plausible "better" language would be Java, and if we went back to October 2014 even Java would be off the table. The TIOBE Index isn't a perfect measure, of course. And I am not advocating that we rewrite the Emacs core in Java. My point is merely that C is not an unpopular language. If we want something unpopular, we could try Cobol at 0.909, or Haskell at 0.290, or Clojure at 0.190.... My source: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/tiobe_index (retrieved 2015-10-11)