Xref: utzoo gnu.emacs.help:479 comp.emacs:9660 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!husc6!encore!pierson From: pierson@encore.com (Dan L. Pierson) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs Subject: Re: Emacs V19 and Scheme Message-ID: Date: 3 Dec 90 16:32:36 GMT References: Sender: news@Encore.COM Followup-To: comp.emacs Organization: Encore Computer Corporation Lines: 33 In-reply-to: hanche@imf.unit.no's message of 30 Nov 90 15:31:10 GMT In article hanche@imf.unit.no (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes: In article jkh@bambam.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes: [Warning -- selective quoting ahead] To state it more succinctly this time, why not Scheme as Emacs' extension language? I know E-Lisp already exists, and works, but it's Yet Another Dialect and I'm wondering why we still need go that way when a small & optimal lisp now exists. I think people think they have waited long enough for V19 as it is. Don't let us add another year or two to the wait. Don't misunderstand me, I would love to see an Emacs based on Scheme myself, but I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you want an Emacs in Scheme I suggest that you get the Edwin sources from the latest MIT CScheme distribution, port them to standard Scheme (maybe by adding portable code to implement the necessary CScheme extensions?), and add or port enough code to duplicate the functionality of GNU Emacs. Then, if the result has real advantages (e.g. smaller, faster, cleaner but same size and speed), we can all consider using it. Followups have been directed to comp.emacs, since this thread is not really about GNU software anymore. -- dan In real life: Dan Pierson, Encore Computer Corporation, Research UUCP: {talcott,linus,necis,decvax}!encore!pierson Internet: pierson@encore.com Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com