3 ms·
He is looking for TeXmacs. Sadly it seems the porting of the GNU extensible editor to use the GNU extension language (guile) ship has sailed.
by wdkrnls 4y ago
He is looking for TeXmacs. Sadly it seems the porting of the GNU extensible editor to use the GNU extension language (guile) ship has sailed.
- dleslie 4y agoMostly because the huge gains in speed that were desired were found in the native compilation fork. That, and the R5/R6/R7 debacle has alienated many from scheme.
- e3bc54b2 4y agoNot to mention the humongous pile of Elisp written over 40 years of its existence is hard to be backwards compatible with for any new implementation. Emacs' core isn't known to be the best codebase in existence, but it is battle hardened and hard to replicate.
- guestbest 4y agoI was thinking that applications like operating systems reveal the language they are written in as they are extended and there is too much c++ in texmacs to port it over to emacs which appears to be written in c. I can’t really comment on guile without researching it but the low level ideas are between scheme and lisp are incompatible with the lisp language, and I think he mentioned that when he said ‘non-Lispy language would be a mistake’.