Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Alex Schroeder]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> I am not interested in hosting Emacs on Common Lisp
> because that would require adding far too much to it.

I do not understand the statement -- what does "it" refer to, and why
is there stuff to add -- and what does is added, size or functionality
or complexity?

After all, the Guile discussion seemed to indicate a lot of things
that have to be added to Guile.  So in my simplistic model, we either
add lots of stuff to Guile and and get Emacs + Scheme (a simple
language without many libraries), or we make some changes to Emacs to
incorporate CLISP and get Emacs + Common Lisp (a powerful and complex
language without many libraries).  In either case, Emacs is powerful
and complex and has many libraries.  Using Common Lisp will make
things more complex, but not increase the workload as far as I can
tell -- and the complexity of CL buys us the power of CL, something
many people have yearned for.  Using Scheme on the other hand does not
save us workload, and eventhough complexity seems manageable, the
power increase is not obvious either.  Faced with this, it seems to me
that I'd rather have Emacs + CL than Emacs + Scheme.

Alex.
-- 
http://www.electronicintifada.net/diaries/index.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/hr2506c.html