4 ms·

Emacs sates my needs well - the only downside is how ancient Emacs Lisp is. Haskell is a much more elegant language (and up to date); it would be an excellent r

by Ixiaus 16y ago

Emacs sates my needs well - the only downside is how ancient Emacs Lisp is. Haskell is a much more elegant language (and up to date); it would be an excellent replacement, only problem is producing all of the "modes" that I use in Emacs for Yi.

jrockway 16y ago
But actually, your editor macros will read almost the same in Haskell as they do in Emacs Lisp. Some things like complicated data processing are better in Haskell, but mostly because of the speed, not the syntax. (Compare your .emacs to your xmonad.hs.) Emacs Lisp is not particularly ancient anyway, changes are committed every day.
- cscheid 16y ago
  Anything with dynamic scoping belongs squarely in the ancient category. We're about a decade overdue for replacing Elisp with Scheme.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Everything has dynamic scoping. Emacs 24 has lexical scoping, too. But honestly, lexical scoping reduces the chance of introducing unwanted binding at the cost of reducing the ease of "accidental" customization. Emacs' "nothing is closed" policy has worked very well for a lot of developers and users over the years. With enforced privacy, we're on the way to Eclipse, which can only be customized by 100 man teams working 18 hour days. Remember, Emacs is not your backend batch processing app. You are always in front of it, interacting with it -- if it fucks up, you fix the bug right there because you are right there.
    - dataangel 16y ago
      Everything has dynamic scoping. How the heck do you figure that? The majority of languages after emacs lisp specifically avoid dynamic scoping.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Perl has it, Python has it, Ruby has it, PHP has it, Haskell has it...
        cscheid 16y ago
        How exactly does Haskell have dynamic scoping? An appropriate monad does not count.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Anything that only has dynamic scoping. I look forward to the day that anything that doesn't support dynamic scoping is considered ancient. It's really helpful when you need it.
- Ixiaus 16y ago
  Good points - when I said it [ELisp] was ancient I was referring to the "dynamic scope" argument someone else deeper in the thread already mentioned. I've read a lot of conflicting opinions about it so I suppose I should stop assuming it is either good or bad and actually create my own opinion of it by doing my own research.
swah 16y ago
Emacs is state all around - that can't be easy or elegant to replace with a purely functional language - or not ?

by Ixiaus 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago

But actually, your editor macros will read almost the same in Haskell as they do in Emacs Lisp. Some things like complicated data processing are better in Haskell, but mostly because of the speed, not the syntax. (Compare your .emacs to your xmonad.hs.) Emacs Lisp is not particularly ancient anyway, changes are committed every day.

cscheid 16y ago
Anything with dynamic scoping belongs squarely in the ancient category. We're about a decade overdue for replacing Elisp with Scheme.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Everything has dynamic scoping. Emacs 24 has lexical scoping, too. But honestly, lexical scoping reduces the chance of introducing unwanted binding at the cost of reducing the ease of "accidental" customization. Emacs' "nothing is closed" policy has worked very well for a lot of developers and users over the years. With enforced privacy, we're on the way to Eclipse, which can only be customized by 100 man teams working 18 hour days. Remember, Emacs is not your backend batch processing app. You are always in front of it, interacting with it -- if it fucks up, you fix the bug right there because you are right there.
  - dataangel 16y ago
    Everything has dynamic scoping. How the heck do you figure that? The majority of languages after emacs lisp specifically avoid dynamic scoping.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Perl has it, Python has it, Ruby has it, PHP has it, Haskell has it...
      - cscheid 16y ago
        How exactly does Haskell have dynamic scoping? An appropriate monad does not count.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Anything that only has dynamic scoping. I look forward to the day that anything that doesn't support dynamic scoping is considered ancient. It's really helpful when you need it.
Ixiaus 16y ago
Good points - when I said it [ELisp] was ancient I was referring to the "dynamic scope" argument someone else deeper in the thread already mentioned. I've read a lot of conflicting opinions about it so I suppose I should stop assuming it is either good or bad and actually create my own opinion of it by doing my own research.

swah 16y ago

Emacs is state all around - that can't be easy or elegant to replace with a purely functional language - or not ?