Re: Guile in Emacs

[Stephen Eilert]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, immanuel litzroth <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing.  Common Lisp has its own focus.
> Common Lisp doesn't have a focus that I am aware of. It is the language
> that is most close to Emacs Lisp syntactically, and most emacs code that
> doesn't have editor specific stuff will run in Common Lisp & vice versa.
>
>> For an extension language, it is preferable to have a system where you
>> can read through the manual in one day and basically understand it
> The effort to "basically" understand CL is the same as the for scheme. 
> Moreover
> scheme has some exotic stuff like hygienic macros and continuations which are
> not stuff you "basically understand in a day".
>
>> Scheme is a smaller starting point than Common Lisp.
> So with a common lisp system you get:
> 1) compilation to machine code
> 2) standardized implementation of classes
> 3) structures, hashes
> 4) Exceptions
> With a scheme system you get
> 1) call-with-current-continuation
>

And who said you won't get native code, classes, structures, hashes
and exceptions with scheme? They are just not documented in R5RS
(let's forget R6RS ever existed). Most scheme implementations have
these features, they are not portable however.

Which is hardly a concern for Guile and Emacs Guile.


--Stephen

programmer, n:
        A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with
inanimate monsters.