From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:49:58 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <1271028837.6164.55.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1271102739.6067.38.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <8039yz34ka.fsf@tiny.isode.net> <1271173887.6067.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <87ljcqqxoc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271253050 29763 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 13:50:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:50:50 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 15:50:46 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1O22zN-0001as-Dw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:50:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49552 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O22zM-0006cc-Tx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:50:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O22yz-0006Uf-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:50:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45276 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O22ys-0006Rk-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:50:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22ym-0007SY-1L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:50:14 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:57025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22yl-0007SJ-NP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22yj-0001Cj-Ql for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:50:05 +0200 Original-Received: from dial-180024.pool.broadband44.net ([212.46.180.24]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:50:05 +0200 Original-Received: from eller.helmut by dial-180024.pool.broadband44.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:50:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 38 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-180024.pool.broadband44.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:d3P68Api45tkmFUeKunWDouS+hA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123637 Archived-At: * Stephen Eilert [2010-04-14 15:11+0200] writes: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, immanuel litzroth wrote: >>> Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing.  Common Lisp has its own focus. >> Common Lisp doesn't have a focus that I am aware of. It is the language >> that is most close to Emacs Lisp syntactically, and most emacs code that >> doesn't have editor specific stuff will run in Common Lisp & vice versa. >> >>> For an extension language, it is preferable to have a system where you >>> can read through the manual in one day and basically understand it >> The effort to "basically" understand CL is the same as the for scheme. Moreover >> scheme has some exotic stuff like hygienic macros and continuations which are >> not stuff you "basically understand in a day". >> >>> Scheme is a smaller starting point than Common Lisp. >> So with a common lisp system you get: >> 1) compilation to machine code >> 2) standardized implementation of classes >> 3) structures, hashes >> 4) Exceptions >> With a scheme system you get >> 1) call-with-current-continuation >> > > And who said you won't get native code, classes, structures, hashes > and exceptions with scheme? Those who say that Scheme is small and elegant. If Scheme has all the features of CL it's no longer smaller than CL. > They are just not documented in R5RS (let's forget R6RS ever > existed). Most scheme implementations have these features, they are > not portable however. Comparing implementations of one language with the specification of another language makes as much sense as comparing apples with oranges. Helmut