From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10 (was: Re: Emacs website, Lisp, and other) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 19:38:36 +0300 Message-ID: <86wmkuq60j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87sevj9b50.fsf@jeremybryant.net> <871q33rj7v.fsf@dataswamp.org> <86ed73qhly.fsf@gnu.org> <87frrjoryg.fsf_-_@dataswamp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28066"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Emanuel Berg Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 05 18:39:25 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sb0k1-00078M-28 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 18:39:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb0jK-0007O4-6S; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:38:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb0jI-0007Nt-Qx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:38:40 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sb0jH-0002hS-Tk; Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:38:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=S9WPjGGHB8qD6hO9g3uoMSMqA1E3TqEv/QVO9UscK2E=; b=nYqOIlXvsjXdYSO5hSdV V6LxKalAr5N43xrh7zb6TfcHRy7D0QxvyQFjYmzK/vfyJ8sIttJMkmZIKe+jJKHJrNIlEOpf7yuAF 5c08vuqV9bTNeacl1NXcZY0KY+mpmWuoHKPa50UGhrfRHx9YGdJDUFu3eVmfyV89Re5TzKPC8tPI9 L3uL5NfcrIsWa40y8hBrpQ/qpIFf7HJpJ+cse+5nFhkmATNKgmxQLRpRbU6O/QBKm9iyzQwCAyKRx qzdA0fPeMEMoRR15upV7eJg3MhRDjuvyVrhSit2sa6lAsDJOk4nrG/q+jtju4AXsqLgOtBTZzNLYa mc2OL9x3XfGWMA==; In-Reply-To: <87frrjoryg.fsf_-_@dataswamp.org> (message from Emanuel Berg on Mon, 05 Aug 2024 18:27:35 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322394 Archived-At: > From: Emanuel Berg > Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 18:27:35 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Please, everybody, take the Lisp vs Python argument off this > > list, it is off-topic here. If you must discuss this, please > > use the emacs-tangents@gnu.org mailing list instead. > > Sure, but we are allowed to discuss how to make Elisp better? Yopu could try, although it is usually not a useful discussion. > Since Python has had enormous success, and Lisp hasn't - or if > it had, it lost it - it might be a good ide to analyze what > they (Python) did good. > > You might think this is some bängalow discussion just because > certain people are in it. But it doesn't have to be like > that, it can be very hands-on. > > Ten things that are annoying with Emacs Lisp from the holster, > and what to do about them: > > 10. Moving point around all the time. Whatever program, what > you do is, it feels like, not solving your problem > algorithmicly, you are just doing endless > > (goto (point-min)) > (prong (end-of-paragraph) (current-column)) > (pos-eol -1) > > (setq exists-after-point (unless (re-search-forward re nil t) (point))) > > Frustration: What has this to do with my problem and > proposed solution? I understand Emacs grew around its > function as a text editor, but "everything is in the > buffer" and "the buffer is the data structure of Emacs", > that has goon too far and we see a lot of code being > virtually a very, very long traversal of buffers moving > around point. So what ought to have been a tolerable > exception, has become the norm and hailed model to the > point, as I said earlier, interfaces toward programming > are so weak it is considered normal that ispell can't even > to (spell "word") without first outputting it somewhere > and to the operation on that surface. There's nothing more natural than an editor analyzing text in a buffer. Why it frustrates you is beyond me. Emacs Lisp is not a general-purpose programming language. It is a language for implementing Emacs and Emacs extensions. Thus, comparing it with Python is, in general, simply wrong. We can compare a few specific aspects, but not the languages as a whole, and definitely not their success rate: the scope of Emacs Lisp is limited to Emacs, which is orders of magnitude more narrow than the scope of Python (or any other general-purpose programming language).