4:07 p.m.
jari.aalto(a)poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.emacs) writes:
We only need to take a look at the number of people that are
supporting Perl modules compared with the number of people
supporting Emacs lisp modules (and programs) and it's easy to
calculate ratio of 50:1. Check traffic in perl groups vs. Emacs.
If we had Perl as extension language, a vast number of potential
programmers might step in.
Thanks, but: no thanks.
BTW, when you do the Perl-vs-Emacs groups ratios, don't forget to
discount the noise. I wonder how many more useful replies people are
getting on Emacs groups, compared to Perl.
5:23 p.m.
New subject: Perl embedding: trial balloon
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> wrote:
jari.aalto(a)poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.emacs) writes:
> We only need to take a look at the number of people that are
> supporting Perl modules compared with the number of people
> supporting Emacs lisp modules (and programs) and it's easy to
> calculate ratio of 50:1. Check traffic in perl groups vs. Emacs.
>
> If we had Perl as extension language, a vast number of potential
> programmers might step in.
Thanks, but: no thanks.
Luckily, you have the option to say that. Why not let others say
thanks but no thanks to Lisp?
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Perl embedding: trial balloon
John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com> writes:
Luckily, you have the option to say that. Why not let others say
thanks but no thanks to Lisp?
To use Emacs to the point of being able to debug problems and extend
the bundled functionality, to you have to learn at most two
languages. Emacs Lisp and (if you get advanced) C. I'd hate to see
that number increase.
It's not that important what the languages are (excluding horrors like
TCL or anything by Wirth). If Emacs was Perl based, I'd be just as
strongly opposed to including a Lisp dialect as an equally supported
alternative.
However, making it possible to embed other interpreters as loadable
modules would be ok, as long as these weren't part of the standard
distribution. There are special situations where the use of such
alternative interpreters could be justified.
4:46 a.m.
New subject: Perl embedding: trial balloon
Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
However, making it possible to embed other interpreters as loadable
modules would be ok, as long as these weren't part of the standard
distribution. There are special situations where the use of such
alternative interpreters could be justified.
We may not be as far apart as it would seem. I can live with having
other-language support only as a loadable module, although I would
appreciate being able to load it into the dumped binary.
I'm not sure whether you object to adding the Perl interpreter to the
standard distribution (which I certainly don't propose) or adding only
the stub which allows linking an installed Perl. Certainly the glue
code by itself would not constitute much bloat, though it would be
reasonable to hold off including it until we see whether the plan is
viable.
kind of ugly hacks that kills software projects
ad-hoc solution like a single "Perl+Emacs" executable
maintainable design decisions vs. short-sighted ad-hoc solutions.
Please choose your words carefully, and do not be quick to criticize
what (I assume) you have not examined.
10:37 a.m.
New subject: Perl embedding: trial balloon
John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com> writes:
I'm not sure whether you object to adding the Perl interpreter to
the
standard distribution (which I certainly don't propose) or adding only
the stub which allows linking an installed Perl.
I object to both. What I want is:
1) The standard Emacs distribution should contain a mechanism for
adding _arbitrary_ interpreters. I.e., nothing Perl specific.
2) The user should be able to use these interpreters simply by
downloading them and installing them in an appropriate directory. No
recompilation should be needed.
I don't object to the user being able to _optionally_ add these
interepreters to the dumped Emacs, just like he can _optionally_ dump
pre-loaded Lisp packages with Emacs.
> kind of ugly hacks that kills software projects
> ad-hoc solution like a single "Perl+Emacs" executable
> maintainable design decisions vs. short-sighted ad-hoc solutions.
Please choose your words carefully, and do not be quick to criticize
what (I assume) you have not examined.
I haven't looked at your code, and I'm therefore speaking in general
terms about how to add foreign interpreter support to Emacs, not about
your specific implementation.
5:19 a.m.
New subject: Perl embedding: trial balloon
Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 1999 at 12:23:01PM -0400, John Tobey wrote:
> Luckily, you have the option to say that. Why not let others say
> thanks but no thanks to Lisp?
Why do they use an editor written in lisp is they think that?
Because it is the best editor.
(btw, I think you mean "written in a combination of C and Lisp")
9161
days inactive
9162
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Hrvoje Niksic -
John Tobey -
Olivier Galibert -
Per Abrahamsen