Re: Emacs Lisp and Guile

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Sam Steingold <address@hidden> writes:

>> Since visibility of the work on Guile Emacs seem to be pretty much
>> nil, one way to prove that CLISP would be a better way would be to
>> simply get a barely working emacs clone running on it and document
>> some design considerations and thoughts.  I'm sure it would attract
>> people that want to work on it.
>
> I am not so sure about it.

I, for one, would be quite interested in working on a CL Emacs, if
there was any hope of there being a chance of it succeeding.

My day job is writing Common Lisp stuff, and there are quite a few
times I've yearned for the power of Emacs when doing stuff in Common
Lisp.  (Mostly text-based stuff, but there are just so many libraries
in Emacs for doing, well, absolutely anything, that it would be so
handy...)

And the reverse as well -- when writing Emacs Lisp, I'm crying out
for the power of a Common Lisp underneath the hood.  

A combination of a powerful Lisp with Emacs is extremely alluring.

(It's not that Scheme is a bad idea; it's just that there's a lot of
thought gone into Common Lisp on how to do, er, a *lot* of things.
Scheme is a lot more stripped down, and when you add new stuff to fill
in the blanks, you usually end up with something that doesn't cohere
as well as a mature implementation.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   address@hidden * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen