Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic writes:
> > I'd have to learn Scheme to be able to contribute to such an
> > XEmacs at all.
>
> I don't think so. I think the success or failure of whatever new
> substrate gets added will depend on the quality of the Emacs-Lisp
> emulation.
Note that "I" in the quoted sense was not a general reference, but a
reference to myself. If most/all the internals will be in Scheme, I
will definitely have to learn it to hack the internals. Kind of like
one needs to learn C if he wants to contribute to XEmacs internals.
> As an example, since I support VM for GNU Emacs and XEmacs, and
> since the code and comments weigh in at over 25000 lines at this
> time, and since I only hack on it part-time, it is unlikely that I'm
> going to be rewriting the whole thing in Scheme or Common Lisp or
> anything else. Anything that introduces significant semantic
> changes that require piles of old code to be rewritten is going to
> be a non-starter. (Leaving aside things like emacs-lisp debuggers,
> which are bound to be a total loss.) Also if applications run
> miserably slowly under the emulated Emacs-Lisp then the users will
> likely vote with their feet and use something else.
>
> So I think you'll be able to contribute for quite some time. The
> last thing we want to do is scare off proven Emacs-Lisp contributors
> for hypothetical Scheme or Common Lisp contributors.
I think all of the members of this discussion agree with you on this,
Kyle. I certainly do.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Call CIA and tell them that you have placed a bomb in a 7-11 shop! Be
sure to let them trace you. Spend 10 years in jail and then regret it.