Your 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, namespa

Your 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.