How do you fix your con, > - There's no namespacing between packages. They can run right over each other and cause weird bugs. This isn't theoretical; it's wha

How do you fix your con, > - There's no namespacing between packages. They can run right over each other and cause weird bugs. This isn't theoretical; it's what happens when you have a bunch of packages installed. Sorting out performance issues caused by the interactions between packages is very challenging. without sacrificing your pro?: > - From anywhere in the editor, you can run code---you don't need to make a new package to be able to execute a snippet of Elisp. The fact that you can go to any package source file, modify a function and reload it on the currently running emacs instance (with C-M-x/eval-defun) kind of depends on definitions being standalone and at the top-level. You can have namespacing in the form of prefixing identifiers with the package name. If there's name-clashing between packages, it's because they didn't follow that convention. What more would you want out of namespacing that you can get without sacrificing or limiting that pro you mentioned? > Edit: I should also add that Elisp is an absolutely terrible programming language when compared to more modern alternatives. There are many reasons to hate pretty much anything. I'm not sure how you expect one to respond, if you don't give some idea of what it is that you find terrible about it. It's always pros and cons with most things. "modern" also doesn't mean anything. Are you talking about languages that were invented recently or that are still maintained, evolving, and/or used despite being invented in "non-modern" times? Where does "modern" even start?