From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:03:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87pp0cknia.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87r3kusx8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83lhb26eb9.fsf@gnu.org> <876126key3.fsf@gnu.org> <83fv1a6bfu.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1weo7u9.fsf@gnu.org> <83zizi3qr0.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhb1n81y.fsf@gnu.org> <83si594wt3.fsf@gnu.org> <87io64iigs.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3kso1gr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wpuks5ek.fsf@T420.taylan> <83vba4i1z3.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp0cqgjf.fsf@T420.taylan> <83twpoi0sp.fsf@gnu.org> <878u70qf75.fsf@T420.taylan> <83mvvghydi.fsf@gnu.org> <5623E3B5.8050407@dancol.org> <87y4f0kos9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5623EAB2.5000008@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445195029 26284 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2015 19:03:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 18 21:03:49 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 1ZntFE-0002Hr-UM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:03:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35226 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZntFE-00035Y-AA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:03:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZntF0-00035T-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:03:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZntEz-0006Tp-Qr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:03:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51293) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZntEs-0006Sw-GF; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:03:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36878 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZntEr-0007W0-Rz; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:03:26 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 44873DF535; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:03:25 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5623EAB2.5000008@dancol.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:53:38 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:192002 Archived-At: Daniel Colascione writes: > On 10/18/2015 11:35 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Daniel Colascione writes: >>> Wanting to use one language is, IMHO, a poor choice for wanting to >>> completely swap out a language. I am opposed to Guilemacs, not only on >>> technical grounds, but also because elisp is essential to Emacs (and >>> not just an optional extension system), and I want its implementation >>> to live alongside the rest of the Emacs core code. >> >> I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea to separate the Elisp >> implementation more from the Emacs core code. It provides a >> well-documented interface between the two: hacking the C code in Emacs >> remains a considerable inside job and is not documented on its own. >> >> So I consider this a strength rather than a weakness of the GuileEmacs >> proposition in the long term. > > I disagree. Then we disagree. > Integrating the interpreter and the editor makes integrated changes > easy. It also makes elisp releases synchronous with Emacs ones. I > don't think a strong library separate here gives us anything useful. > > Consider my recent change to add finalizers to elisp. I saw a need for > the feature and just implemented it directly in Emacs. What would the > equivalent be in a guilemacs world? You'd have used GUILE's guardians, and could have done this as an ELPA package with a GUILE component. No recompilation required for an end user. > We'd have to go to all that trouble for what, exactly? A cleaner > internal API? I don't buy it. Guilemacs has other disadvantages: > currently, Emacs supports _only_ elisp as a first-class extension > language. Guilemacs would invite people to write Emacs extensions in > Scheme, JavaScript, and whatever else Guile ends up supporting, which > will create fragmentation. A unified elisp ecosystem is a strength. I don't consider options a problem. -- David Kastrup