4 ms·
Edit: Maybe it makes sense to hire a marketer or five? Also, lots of eye candy. 1. The longer we wait the more elisp is gonna be out there and the more painful
by blintson 17y ago
Edit: Maybe it makes sense to hire a marketer or five? Also, lots of eye candy.
1. The longer we wait the more elisp is gonna be out there and the more painful continuing to maintain existing elisp, and the eventual transition will be. Nobody wants to be the one to muck through it all(for free), but the payoff if the project is successful is so huge I think the risk-to-reward ratio makes sense. Also, rewriting emacs would beat the hell out of most coding jobs out there.
2. Scheme was made to be as minimalist a language as possible, making it easier to wrap your head around the whole language. And more importantly, lowering the learning curve a little. (I've been bit in the ass by inconsistencies in how elisp handles things before.)
3. SICP is in scheme. I think it'd be great for the language people learn 'hello world' in to be very similar or identical the language they mod. their text editor in. A single smooth experience, instead of the jarring shock when you bump against elisps rough edges.
4.Again, lisp-1. I believe I could've spent lot less time writing in emacs-lisp if it had a single namespace. It certainly makes it easier to have code-as-data.
- hapless 17y agoYour reply seems to discuss elisp, not Common Lisp. elisp is not CL. Scheme and CL have more in common than elisp and CL or elisp and Scheme. (OO/MOP, namespacing, modern compilers, lexical scope) My assertion was that there are already very sophisticated alternatives to emacs, written in a real, modern language. elisp is terrible, but the failure of CL-based emacs makes it clear that popularity is more important than ease of use or ease in learning. I don't see how the use of Scheme would make a difference.