Re: Guile in Emacs

[Helmut Eller]

* Stephen Eilert [2010-04-14 15:11+0200] writes:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:55 AM, immanuel litzroth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Emacs Lisp is streamlined for editing. Â 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? 

Those who say that Scheme is small and elegant.  If Scheme has all the
features of CL it's no longer smaller than CL.

> They are just not documented in R5RS (let's forget R6RS ever
> existed).  Most scheme implementations have these features, they are
> not portable however.

Comparing implementations of one language with the specification of
another language makes as much sense as comparing apples with oranges.

Helmut