Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language

[Chris Patti <cpatti@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:01:50 +0200
>>>
>>> > If it can leverage what the contributor already knows about Elisp,
>>> > I'm all for it. I wonder what RMS' and Eli's reaction would be.
>>>
>>> There is the GUILE branch.
>>
>> First, Guile's Scheme is not Emacs Lisp, there are significant
>> differences.
>
> Uh, the topic was rewriting Emacs in a Lisp-like language performing
> better than Elisp.  I was pointing out that treating this topic as if
> something like that would be totally new was leaving out a significant
> bit of history.

This would not be GNU emacs.  GNU emacs is what it is because it's
written in and runs elisp.  There is SO MUCH elisp out there that does
so much for so many people, this just doesn't make any sense.

Go create a new thing if you like and call it foomacs, but IMO emacs
performs just great on modern machines, so why fix what isn't broken?

Just my $.02 of course.

-Chris
-- 
Christopher Patti - Geek At Large | GTalk: cpatti@gmail.com | AIM:
chrisfeohpatti | P: (260) 54PATTI
"Technology challenges art, art inspires technology." - John Lasseter, Pixar