Re: About implementing libre.js/el in Emacs

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1735 bytes --]

OK, I don't see one as being worse than the other. They are different and
have different benefits/drawbacks.

WRT developing plugins in elisp, I wonder if using the Google Closure
Compiler (Apache 2.0 License) could be useful. This is what Clojurescript
does, allowing you to develop in Clojure Lisp and the output being
optimised JS code. However, not sure how much demand there would be for
writing browser (or node) extensions in elisp. While it is nice to write in
lisp to develop JS, Clojurescript has already provided that wheel and it is
quite mature.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Qiantan Hong <qhong@mit.edu> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 29, 2020, at 10:26 PM, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just curious - in what ways is JS worse then Elisp?
> There’re lots of other arguments, e.g. homoiconicity, typing (js does lots
> of
> unreasonable type casts)… but in this context, I think the most important
> point is that Emacs and Emacs Lisp give one of the most flexible and
> self-descriptive programming system. If something is implemented in
> Emacs lisp, we get M-x apropos, describe-function, describe-variable,
> they can be overrode by just eval-defun, and can be advised. Customizing
> or extending it is painless and trivial. However, those things become
> much harder if the package is implemented in JS.
>
> > I agree Option 1 would give more bang for your buck - at least
> initially.
> >
> I’ll take that. I imagine while implementing Web Extensions API for js
> it will be trivial to also bring those to Elisp too, so finally we not only
> have those JS browser plugins to run but can also develop plugins
> in Elisp.



-- 
regards,

Tim

--
Tim Cross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2302 bytes --]