From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kin Cho Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Cool and Useful LISP for the .emacs file Date: 07 Nov 2003 19:23:19 -0800 Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <7ik76b4k7s.fsf@neoscale.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1068262236 16747 80.91.224.253 (8 Nov 2003 03:30:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 03:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 08 04:30:34 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 1AIJo1-0007Je-00 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:30:34 +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 1AIKl6-0002fD-H0 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:31:36 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!12.24.46.66!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 56 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.24.46.66 Original-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068261807 49441912 12.24.46.66 (16 [151019]) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:118001 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor 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:13940 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:13940 "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. Having to jump ruts is an obstacle to those of > us who do not choose to invest this time. > > I wonder how many more developers there might be for emacs if it had a > more accessible programming language. And I wonder if being wedded to > lisp will have an impact on emacs' future. Certainly, for me, it > makes casual dilettante hacking for my own uses difficult, whereas I > can usually muddle by in a piece of perl code. > 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. Having to jump ruts is an obstacle to those of > us who do not choose to invest this time. > > I wonder how many more developers there might be for emacs if it had a > more accessible programming language. And I wonder if being wedded to > lisp will have an impact on emacs' future. Certainly, for me, it > makes casual dilettante hacking for my own uses difficult, whereas I > can usually muddle by in a piece of perl code. I used to carry around a collection of shell, sed, awk, and perl scripts to do various text/file/directory processing, as well as doing cvs/rcs stuff, running compilation and gdb etc... Now I do (almost) all these things in elisp. Except for the limitation of 28 bit integers (which is about the only time I need to drop to perl), elisp is much more powerful and elegant. Some of the things I wrote elisp to do include: run special compilation commands depending on project directory, mount loopback filesystem devices within dired, parse tcpdump output, etc... In short, elisp makes it possible for me to create my very own (text-based) IDE. > But perhaps your sentiments are correct - maybe the litmus test of > having to learn lisp keeps out the riff-raff and leaves emacs to be > developed by the dedicated "professional programmers." Maybe that is > why it has remained so successful and the quality of what is out > there so high. I'm just trying to point out the point of view from a > longtime user in the trenches. I suspect many excellent elisp authors aren't "professional programmers", but smart tinkerers. -kin