3 ms·

I mean emacs has way more bugs than modern editors. Types would help you fix that and let you optimize code more since they help with "proving" that your code i

• iLemming 5d ago
  > has way more bugs than modern editors That's just factually untrue. Emacs core is not obviously buggier than, let's say, VSCode, which has tens of thousands of open issues and is written in Typescript. What differs is visibility. Emacs throws a backtrace in your face; VSCode swallows extension errors into a log nobody reads. And every Emacs user runs a unique build with like 350 packages nobody tested together; try to even start VSCode with half that number of plugins. The bugs that actually hurt in Emacs are state bugs, not type bugs. Two packages advise the same function. A buffer-local variable is set in one mode and read in another. Dynamic binding leaks. None of that is a type error in the Haskell sense. The dynamism is the product, not an accident. Redefining any function at runtime, advising anything, inspecting live state - that is why people use Emacs instead of an editor with a plugin API. Strong static types plus separate compilation cut against late binding everywhere. You're not "biased", you just seem to be unfamiliar with the type dynamism in Lisp systems. Dynamic types are not equally bad everywhere; don't take what you know about Python and apply it the same way to things built in, e.g., Clojure.