From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: pjb@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: About Emacs Modernisation Project Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:40:05 +0200 Organization: Informatimago Message-ID: <87wrujuowq.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> References: <143c6d28-4423-4e43-9fc5-c0fb3340043b@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <87ljazofkn.fsf@rapttech.com.au> <04eff456-349f-4840-b0f7-d1784f6b7058@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> <87r5krh3e0.fsf@unm.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291825298 10104 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 16:21:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:21:38 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 17:21:32 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1PQMln-0002fU-PP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:21:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35716 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQMlm-0001a7-Ol for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:21:30 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 72 Original-X-Trace: individual.net hWzmwJRJk+7y7mabGvMqDQVZaXdIHzVstBCMCRoJlzG5G4dBRx Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZjY5NGIzZTE4YmMzM2YyYjM0MjI2YTgxMjUzYmRiZGQ1ZmZhYjlkYw== sha1:sUfPJ/bjKwY+mizWITurdNCxM7w= Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9 033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en X-Disabled: X-No-Archive: no Importance: high User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:178515 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:75600 Archived-At: Evans Winner writes: > LanX writes: > > No name spaces, no real lexical variables [...] > > These are not bugs, they are features. One uses the right > tool for the job. It is highly unlikely that the language > of choice for serious hackers working on developing large, > complex systems is going to be the same language chosen for > casual text editor users who want to quickly and simply > customize some element of their editor. Possibly. However, if emacs was reprogrammed in Common Lisp, you could have both. Naive users could be provided with an environment with only dynamic binding and a unique namespace, while sophisticated programmers could use all the features of Common Lisp. Also, as mentionned in another post, it would be easier to implement other user-friend scripting languages in Common Lisp than in emacs lisp. > If I had to put up > with thinking about bugs from counter-intuitive effects of > lexical bindings, or package problems when writing code to > do every simple thing I want Emacs to do, I'd just forget > the whole stupid thing and go back to notepad.exe -- or more > precisely, a non-programmer like me would never have even > gotten a start with it. I've written some reasonably useful > code -- at least for my own purposes, and as a result of my > work with Emacs I have even learned a bit of Common Lisp, > but I don't think that I am alone in that for me Emacs Lisp > is just the exactly right language. It is simple and > intuitive while retaining a good deal of the expressiveness > of a Lisp. Just write one emacs lisp program slightly more complex, and you'll see that you'd rather program text processing scripts in Common Lisp. > If what you want to implement requires industrial-strength > language features, why do you want to implement it in a text > editor? No, that's the other way. Why isn't this text editor implemented in an industrial-strength language. History, of course. But it should be time to correct history errors. Otherwise have a look at Climacs. > -- I mean, I know there are borderline cases, like > gnus, which I use and which is a pretty large and complex > system, but for most purposes, I think Emacs Lisp actually > encourages the production of a lot of little, useful hacks. Unmaintainable hacks. That's the problem for me with emacs lisp code, it's often unmaintable, overly complex, and badly programmed. > Using a language like Python or Guile scheme doesn't strike me as > being as likely to encourage that kind of thing. > > P.S. Climacs, which Pascal mentioned, is useless to me > anyway, because it won't work in a TTY. I can't imagine > never wanting to just shell into a system and go, without > having to tunnel X and all that rot. Yes, I'd like it to work on a terminal too. Clearly, we need more time! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/