From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Eilert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:11:14 -0300 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271250693 20091 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 13:11:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:11:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: immanuel litzroth Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 15:11:30 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 1O22NK-0002p7-TU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:11:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38357 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O22NK-0004dL-2g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:11:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O22NE-0004dF-NS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:11:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50632 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O22NC-0004cu-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:11:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22NB-00088u-4m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:11:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f200.google.com ([209.85.222.200]:43131) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22NA-00088M-Vv; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:11:17 -0400 Original-Received: by pzk38 with SMTP id 38so64223pzk.25 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HRVjAAfeBewJasybpF4zSPClkNfI8Rn4rE4DGhUEs94=; b=tRt3KXlQcBICc6oHaE/uZVl+Hu5hC2CDnremlrUA5fLFofrF1XD6SmqnAJVA7R/JKC pxtDJx1InzZTZiGCPGcy1FQCldCNiWOYP+sxZYjZd3Ma7FGDX0xd/13NeNGHa673oJ5S kYgVHVVLe1XYmYaIy+Y1tgU2fw5bYKbw/HbfE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MQwZQqwkwpdgzB0EkjakWARURlF1/wtXH/KCt2/SpA7r68d0tzWraZw7DzIwbHqHBI z0SzUiytzdnisCgCVZeMj2pj7PCLGza9vrJCO7hZ8RVjb+fcTf57Ccv/7AoYrUjYwJyS cEPv9WqVGK1o2QmU/v9i3z/rucXG1fIHrK+jw= Original-Received: by 10.231.149.16 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:11:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Original-Received: by 10.140.57.15 with SMTP id f15mr7119482rva.56.1271250674636; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:123630 Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, immanuel litzroth wr= ote: >> Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing. =C2=A0Common Lisp has its own foc= us. > 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. Mo= reover > 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? They are just not documented in R5RS (let's forget R6RS ever existed). Most scheme implementations have these features, they are not portable however. Which is hardly a concern for Guile and Emacs Guile. --Stephen programmer, n: A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate monsters.