Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:46:35 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> > From: "John Wiegley" <address@hidden>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:39:32 -0700
> > 
> > >>>>> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > Or a more radical approach: a Lispy language, easy to learn by those who
> > > already know Elisp, but which can be translated all the way to something 
> > > as
> > > performant as the current C code, while being capable of interacting with
> > > it. This way, whenever someone needs fast code, he would use this other
> > > dialect instead of writing C, or the slow Elisp (or avoiding the task
> > > altogether.)
> > 
> > If it can leverage what the contributor already knows about Elisp, I'm all 
> > for
> > it. I wonder what RMS' and Eli's reaction would be.
> 
> I just gave it.

On second thought, I don't think I understand the idea at all.  What
does it mean "a Lispy language, easy to learn"?  Is it a Lisp dialect,
or is it C with a set of Lisp-like macros preprocessed into C?  What
exactly are the C aspects that we are trying to save the programmer
from?  And which part(s) of the core do we expect to be able to
rewrite in this "Lispy" language?