From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:45:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87wrxrr4md.fsf@gnu.org> <3vsk8ecg6a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <873a0euot4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <873a0cyv3r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87aauiho3y.fsf_-_@lifelogs.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271228293 4802 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 06:58:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "bruce.stephens@isode.com" , "lord@emf.net" , Christian Lynbech , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: "rms@gnu.org" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 08:58:09 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 1O1wY5-0001tS-Dp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:58:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42188 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1wY4-0001Xh-Ga for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:58:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1wLv-0005BS-0o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:45:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35627 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1wLr-0005AU-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:45:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1wLl-0000cu-OS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:45:30 -0400 Original-Received: from ebb06.tieto.com ([131.207.168.38]:62986) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1wLl-0000bs-48; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:45:25 -0400 X-AuditID: 83cfa826-b7c95ae000001320-43-4bc5648041f7 Original-Received: from FIHGA-EXHUB01.eu.tieto.com ( [131.207.136.34]) by ebb06.tieto.com (SMTP Mailer) with SMTP id 8B.A6.04896.08465CB4; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:45:20 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: from uw000509 (10.48.99.3) by inbound.tieto.com (131.207.136.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:45:19 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:02:30 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1.95 (gnu/linux) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARO1VaY= 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:123616 Archived-At: >>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman writes: RMS> Common Lisp is extremely complicated and ugly. When I wrote GNU Emacs RMS> I had just finished implementing Common Lisp, and I did not like it RMS> much. It would bloat Emacs terribly, and documenting it would be hard RMS> too. Fair enough, I happen to disagree but I respect that you have real-life experiennce in the matter. I do not understand the point about documentation though. Why would it be harder to document a common lisp based emacs than a scheme based emacs? I do not expect that we would like to make a brand new common lisp from scratch but rather to start out from an exisiting implementation, just as we would with scheme. RMS> Scheme is elegant, and it is a better direction to move in. I will challenge the claim that emacs-on-scheme would be any less bloated than an emacs-on-cl. Sure, core scheme is smaller than core common lisp, but once you have finished adding all of the stuff you need to get a working application, I believe you will have reached pretty much the same level of bloat. RMS> Since we have our own Scheme implementation, we should use that one. RMS> If it has a serious disadvantage, we should do something about that. RMS> There are various things that might be right to do, but simply RMS> disregarding it in the case of Emacs cannot be right. I am personally mostly worried about Thomas' points about getting scheme and emacs lisp to coexist. I just cannot see any evolution of emacs fly in the real world if it involves a clean cut away from the existing base of emacs lisp libraries. How we would ever get all developers and all users to back up such a move is beyond me ("all" used here in the sense of "enough to form a critical mass"). (Incidently, there is still something called GNU Common Lisp, even if not updated since 2005) ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Christian Lynbech | christian #\@ defun #\. dk ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual. - petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)