Re: we need *modularity* [last problem] (was: Re: as for Calc and the math library)

[arthur miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3634 bytes --]

>arthur miller wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>Thanks for your post.

Thanks for the answer.

>Yes, I should stop rant but this realization that Emacs is
>like a huge legacy application - no modularity, no clear
>divisions, no sound policy how it happened - just go by
>instinct and when problem comes - put a convention in a book
>and add more stuff.

Well, yes, 40 years of development does leave some traces I guess.
Different people, professions, epochs, styles, etc.

The big API surface also might contribute to this. Some duplication is
innevitable, but some problems are solved independently, multiple times,
either because of people not being aware of something already existing (myself
been guilty) or simply NIH-syndrome.

I don't think EmacsLisp nor Lisps in general are alone in this. However, Lisp(s)
are very easy to hack, so it is perhaps seen more often in Lisp world: it is
easier to hack your own than to learn and use someone elses code. Examples in
Emacs world are numerous, but I don't want to offend anyone, and I dont' think
it would change anything, so I won't enumerate neither built-in stuff nor
external and well-known packages.

>At the same time people say Lisp is the most powerful language

I don't know. Lisp is a family of languages. As I have learned from a post by
K. Pitman to comp.lang.lisp, McCarthy asked explicitly for none of Lisp dialects
(or languages) to be named "Lisp".

I don't think, any of Lisp languages in popular use is *the* "most powerful
language" if such a qualification among programming languages would even be
possible, certainly not EmacsLisp. But I do think that Lisp languages can be
very elegant. Or at least they have a potential to be elegant, EmacsLisp not
being an exception.

For the reflection on Python, I have stated my opinion here a couple of years or
more ago, and I still stand with the same. I prefer Lisp to Python, if I may
choose, and since I don't consult any more, I can :-). IMO opinion, there is
nothing really interesting about Python. It is a C-like language with some
extensions found in other C-like languages (OO, etc), with somewhat cleaner
syntax and executed in an interpreter. Its real value is interpreter and dynamic
nature. It is indeed an easy and useful language to use, but as interesting as
VisualBasic to me. It is simple, easy, and boring! These are necessary not bad
characteristic, it is a useful language since it is used by many people, and
there is lots of software written for it.

>by definition and that cl-lib and pcase has ruined Emacs (both
>of these are very clean cut in general; in the Emacs jungle,
>they are a miracle of order).

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, aren't they? I don't think you can
do much about it. Not everyone has to agree about everything either. Some people
don't like pcase or cl-lib, so be it.

>With ELPA we have some modularity, we should move stuff from
>core Emacs to ELPA and, as said, get real modularity based on

As Drew use to write: +1 (for moving stuff out to Elpa).

>the package with real prefixes and - well, everything real!
>And, based on technology and not some wishful thinking
>a--human-convention can even reduce such huge disadvantages to
>other technology.
>
>So it is _really bad_, no excuses, had I known it was like
>this - I don't know what would have happened - anyway ... it
>is what it is.
>
>But if we get real modularity we get real libraries and if we
>do, there is hope.

As said in the previous mail, modularity would help, but let us not open another
big, off-topic discussion.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12315 bytes --]