[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp
From: |
Phillip Lord |
Subject: |
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp |
Date: |
29 Apr 2003 15:29:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.93 |
>>>>> "Marco" == Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Marco> Johan Bockgård wrote:
>> From gnu.emacs.help, followup-to set to gnu.emacs.help
>>
>> "Daniel R. Anderson" writes:
>>
>>
>> >On emacswiki.org there is a "wish list". Quite a few people want
>> >emacs to be based on another version of LISP. Out of curiosity,
>> >what is it that makes elisp inherently bad, or why would people
>> >want it to be changed?
Marco> I'll skip the first one. For the second I'd wager that
Marco> people *know* that Common Lisp is the right answer and people
Marco> would love to see RMS admit that he messed up royally by
Marco> promoting Guile :)
For me the issue is more simple I think. I would Emacs to be using a
lisp which was not specific to emacs, as it would probably stop so
much wheel reinvention. There is too much code in emacs, that was
written for emacs, in my own estimation.
I'd just be happy to have a more powerful lisp that's all. Should it
be CL or scheme? From my perspective, I couldn't care that much for a
simple reason. I learnt lisp because I use emacs, rather than the
other way around. I only known elisp in detail. Which ever one emacs
goes with, will be the one that I learn!
Cheers
Phil
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp, Stefan Monnier, 2003/04/30
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp, Kent M Pitman, 2003/04/29
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp, Marco Antoniotti, 2003/04/29
- Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp,
Phillip Lord <=
Re: Differences between Elisp and Lisp, Kaz Kylheku, 2003/04/29