sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
> Hrvoje> Common Lisp is much closer to elisp than any Scheme dialect
> Hrvoje> is.
>
> You've said that on a number of occasions, but I don't even know
> what you mean. Actually, I claim this is false.
Lots of elisp code can run under Common Lisp almost unchanged. This
is not true for Scheme.
> Hrvoje> Using Scheme as a primary language in XEmacs will alienate a
> Hrvoje> large number of our contributors, and I, for one, do not
> Hrvoje> want to see that happen.
>
> If that is indeed so, I'm more than willing to give in. However, we
> don't have any evidence for this statement yet.
I don't want us to find the evidence for it the hard way.
> I personally believe a small substrate is less likely to alienate
> people than a large substrate.
I believe clisp is small enough, especially if we remove the parts we
don't need. Bruno Haible, the primary Clisp maintainer, offered his
help to do this. Someone with more clisp experience should speak up.
> Hrvoje> Translators or compatibility packages for elisp implemented
> Hrvoje> in Scheme would of little help, except for porting old code.
>
> You consider porting old code (several hundred thousands of lines)
> "of little help"?
You are pulling my words out of context. Yes, translators are of
little help, because all they will ever achieve is porting old code.
My goal is having lots of new code in XEmacs.
> Hrvoje> I doubt anyone will consider using them to write new,
> Hrvoje> XEmacs-specific code.
>
> Of course not, that's why we want a substrate change in the first
> place. What's your point?
My point is that choosing Common Lisp is a better idea because it is
closer to Emacs Lisp. But if you answer that you "don't know what I
mean", or that it is false, then we don't have a discussion, do we?
> Hrvoje> My second argument is that XEmacs has been going in the
> Hrvoje> direction of Common Lisp for several years now. Extensions
> Hrvoje> such as cl.el show that pretty clearly.
>
> I honestly want to understand what you mean by this, but I don't.
> Sure, it has made sense to write Elisp libraries with constructs
> modelled like equivalent constructs in Common Lisp. It makes sense
> to write Scheme libraries with those constructs as well.
Does it? Not for me!
> Sure, some people will prefer different programming idioms when they
> have the full power of Scheme available. But they don't have to. I
> use Scheme programming idioms when writing Elisp, for that matter.
> Look at my code. If you want to use Common Lisp idioms when using
> Scheme, that's absolutely fine. In fact, you can make Scheme look
> almost completely like Common Lisp, if you want to.
Yes, that's what we were doing with Emacs Lisp, and I don't really
like the "poor man's common lisp" any more.
> Hrvoje> Suppose the impossible happens, and Erik does come in and
> Hrvoje> does all the work to port XEmacs Lisp to, say, clisp. Would
> Hrvoje> you quit XEmacs development?
>
> Yes.
[...]
> Hrvoje> Now replace Erik with Bruno or Hrvoje. Do the answers change?
>
> Absolutely.
OK, that's what I wanted to know. We can keep discussing.
> Hrvoje> I think that you are arguing for Scheme because of personal
> Hrvoje> preferences, which is perfectly natural. Your battle plan
> Hrvoje> includes only Scheme-based options, and I think that no
> Hrvoje> words of mine would ever convince you to consider anything
> Hrvoje> else.
>
> There must be a misunderstanding here, Hrvoje. My "battle plan" (I
> assume you're referring to my Web page on the subject matter)
> *specifically* includes other options.
Yes, but all the "Lisp engines" you mention are Scheme engines.
> Moreover, I've reserved Web space for arguments on Common Lisp, but
> nobody has sent me anything yet to put there.
I've argued for Common Lisp, both in this thread and elsewhere, but
you kept rejecting my arguments as either irrelevant or false. So I
don't know what else to say to you.
> Hrvoje> This is why I think our disagreements can be only settled by a
> Hrvoje> split, or by one of us leaving the development.
>
> I don't get it Hrvoje, we've hardly started discussion on this, and
> already you claim an irreconcileable split. Why?
Because there is little real discussion between us. I have no
problems with you, and you have no problems with me, but on this
particular issue the two of us appear to be unable to communicate
reasonably. All of my arguments are met with "I don't understand you"
or "I claim this is false." I'm at a loss how to approach discussion
on this topic.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Personifiers Unite! You have nothing to lose but Mr. Dignity!
