sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
One big problem with CL is that noone on the XEmacs team has stepped
forward and written up an argument for it.
This is not true -- I have argued for a stripped-down common lisp in
Common Lisp is much closer to elisp than any Scheme dialect is. Using
Scheme as a primary language in XEmacs will alienate a large number of
our contributors, and I, for one, do not want to see that happen.
Translators or compatibility packages for elisp implemented in Scheme
would of little help, except for porting old code. I doubt anyone
will consider using them to write new, XEmacs-specific code.
My second argument is that XEmacs has been going in the direction of
Common Lisp for several years now. Extensions such as cl.el show that
pretty clearly. If we want to extend elisp further, I think we should
take a radical step in the same direction, rather than turn into a
wholly different one.
(Another issue is that I don't understand your aversion against
Scheme at all. I wish you'd elaborate.)
There is nothing specific to elaborate. All of the points I could
possibly bring would be easily met by your experience, so most of it
boils down to matter of habit.
I've asked on several occasions for write-ups, but so far got
references to Erik Naggum's postings elsewhere. If we want to
implement a technology, but have nobody who's going to stand up for
it, the whole argument for it becomes rather moot. It's highly
unlikely Erik's going to jump on our bandwagon and do all the work.
Besides, I, for one, will quit XEmacs development on the day this
Suppose the impossible happens, and Erik does come in and does all the
work to port XEmacs Lisp to, say, clisp. Would you quit XEmacs
development? If yes, why? Now replace Erik with Bruno or Hrvoje. Do
the answers change?
I think that you are arguing for Scheme because of personal
preferences, which is perfectly natural. Your battle plan includes
only Scheme-based options, and I think that no words of mine would
ever convince you to consider anything else. This is why I think our
disagreements can be only settled by a split, or by one of us leaving
the development. Either of these things would be very bad, but I
don't see another solution -- except for me suddenly falling in love
with Scheme, or you with Common Lisp, both of which are unlikely.
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.