4 ms·
Despite all of Emacs Lisp's faults, I don't think Haskell is a good substitute.* Haskell's design is centered around a compile phase, for static analysis and wa
by silentbicycle 16y ago
Despite all of Emacs Lisp's faults, I don't think Haskell is a good substitute.* Haskell's design is centered around a compile phase, for static analysis and warnings. While this has advantages, it compares poorly with what elisp gives you - sure, it's a bad parody of a Lisp, but you can still rebind large portions of the system while working in it, with imperceptible downtime.
* I also don't like Haskell, but wouldn't suggest OCaml either. (Lua seems born for the role, though.) I got burned hard by settling in with XMonad, only to find out that they didn't care about portability ("avoid success at all costs") - BIG waste of my time. I went back to C for my window manager. C was more stable than Haskell!
- vito 16y agoSpeaking of Lua and text editors, I've been keeping my eye on this for a while: http://code.google.com/p/textadept/ http://code.google.com/p/textadept/
- silentbicycle 16y agoI think it's a great project, but I've got different taste in editors than that person. I would love to have an Emacs-like editor (scriptable, multiple buffers, no GUI or menus) that 1. used Lua instead of elisp, and 2. had a vi-style modal keyboard interface rather than primarily chorded keys. Oh, and not being tied to GTK is nice - I like being able to use Emacs in shells, from screen/tmux, etc. One of these days I might give in and write one, but I've already got too many projects going.
- vito 16y agoAgreed. Being bound to GTK is no fun - I tried it on OS X and it was very sluggish and janky. Was very fun in Linux though.
- lemming 16y agoWow, I've been thinking about almost exactly this for a while now. I'll have to give this a try.