3 ms·

This isn't about Emacs changing the implementation language, but changing the VM that Elisp runs on. Don't worry, there won't be any Scheme in your Elisp.

pmoriarty 12y ago
I wish Emacs would switch to Scheme as an implementation language. Scheme is a lot more elegant and a lot less crusty than CL, not to mention Elisp.
- davexunit 12y ago
  I agree, Scheme is much better both CL and Elisp, but it's not worth switching to lose decades of Elisp. Better to just have Elisp run on a better VM.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    The switch doesn't have to happpen all at once; and, considering how much Elisp would have to be rewritten, it couldn't happen all at once. Rather, I hope the switch is made gradually, and most of all that Elisp fans don't dig their heels in against it, but rather work to make the transition smoother.
    - muuh-gnu 12y ago
      Considering that the push for Guile is not coming from the Emacs community, but from the Guile community in order to promote Guile, I guess that Emacs will be forked as soon as they deprecate Elisp and start forcing people to use Scheme. Switching to Scheme will be GNU Emacs's suicide.
      - pmoriarty 12y ago
        Let me ask you this: If Emacs and all of its extension code was completely rewritten in Scheme, what would be the point of sticking with Elisp? And how would using a Scheme-only Emacs be "GNU Emacs's suicide"? What concrete value does Elisp add over Scheme? CL vs Scheme, I could see an (unconvincing to me) argument for, but Elisp? Elisp? Don't get me wrong. I'd much rather use Elisp than most any other non-lispy language. I just don't see anything in it to recommend it over a modern Scheme like Guile. But I'm open to being shown the errors of my ways. What's so great about Elisp? Please enlighten me.
      - davexunit 12y ago
        >I guess that Emacs will be forked as soon as they deprecate Elisp and start forcing people to use Scheme. Bullshit.
dharmatech 12y ago
Quoting RMS: ---------- Supporting Emacs extensions written in Scheme is part of the goal I had in mind when I proposed this. That's the tangible benefit that we would get from Scheme support. If all Scheme does is serve as a platform for Emacs Lisp, it is no real advance. ---------- See: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-09/msg00638.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-09/msg00... Hacking Emacs with Scheme is part of the plan.

pmoriarty 12y ago

I wish Emacs would switch to Scheme as an implementation language. Scheme is a lot more elegant and a lot less crusty than CL, not to mention Elisp.

davexunit 12y ago
I agree, Scheme is much better both CL and Elisp, but it's not worth switching to lose decades of Elisp. Better to just have Elisp run on a better VM.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  The switch doesn't have to happpen all at once; and, considering how much Elisp would have to be rewritten, it couldn't happen all at once. Rather, I hope the switch is made gradually, and most of all that Elisp fans don't dig their heels in against it, but rather work to make the transition smoother.
  - muuh-gnu 12y ago
    Considering that the push for Guile is not coming from the Emacs community, but from the Guile community in order to promote Guile, I guess that Emacs will be forked as soon as they deprecate Elisp and start forcing people to use Scheme. Switching to Scheme will be GNU Emacs's suicide.
    - pmoriarty 12y ago
      Let me ask you this: If Emacs and all of its extension code was completely rewritten in Scheme, what would be the point of sticking with Elisp? And how would using a Scheme-only Emacs be "GNU Emacs's suicide"? What concrete value does Elisp add over Scheme? CL vs Scheme, I could see an (unconvincing to me) argument for, but Elisp? Elisp? Don't get me wrong. I'd much rather use Elisp than most any other non-lispy language. I just don't see anything in it to recommend it over a modern Scheme like Guile. But I'm open to being shown the errors of my ways. What's so great about Elisp? Please enlighten me.
    - davexunit 12y ago
      >I guess that Emacs will be forked as soon as they deprecate Elisp and start forcing people to use Scheme. Bullshit.

dharmatech 12y ago

Quoting RMS: ---------- Supporting Emacs extensions written in Scheme is part of the goal I had in mind when I proposed this. That's the tangible benefit that we would get from Scheme support. If all Scheme does is serve as a platform for Emacs Lisp, it is no real advance. ---------- See: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-09/msg00638.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-09/msg00... Hacking Emacs with Scheme is part of the plan.