>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
Hrvoje> Common Lisp is much closer to elisp than any Scheme dialect
> You've said that on a number of occasions, but I don't even know
> what you mean. Actually, I claim this is false.
Hrvoje> Lots of elisp code can run under Common Lisp almost unchanged. This
Hrvoje> is not true for Scheme.
Please substantiate this. By default, for instance, `let' is
lexically scoped in Common Lisp, which is clearly incompatible with
Emacs Lisp. Consequently, you would need a library of macros and
procedures to emulate/translate Emacs Lisp functionality into Common
Lisp. The same holds true for Scheme, and I actually have large parts
of such a library.
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.
Hrvoje> I don't want us to find the evidence for it the hard way.
Neither do I. Let's include more people in the discussion and hear
what they say.
> I personally believe a small substrate is less likely to
> people than a large substrate.
Hrvoje> I believe clisp is small enough, especially if we remove the parts we
Hrvoje> don't need.
This, however, means that Emacs CLisp won't be a standard Common Lisp
implementation anymore, and surely old CL buffs will complain.
Hrvoje> My point is that choosing Common Lisp is a better idea because it is
Hrvoje> closer to Emacs Lisp.
The thing I'm having trouble is that you have not substantiated this
statement based on the nature of the three languages involved. We
really need to get down to the technical issues of this, and you
haven't addressed them. I did outline what would be needed to adapt
Scheme to Emacs Lisp. Someone should do the same for Common Lisp, and
we can compare.
> I honestly want to understand what you mean by this, but I
> 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.
Hrvoje> Does it? Not for me!
Well, a lot of Scheme users and implementors disagree with you. Most
Scheme implementations come with precisely such libraries. Usually,
their designs are generalizations and improvements over their CL
equivalents (if they indeed exist), but they easily scale down.
> In fact, you can make Scheme look almost completely like Common
> Lisp, if you want to.
Hrvoje> Yes, that's what we were doing with Emacs Lisp, and I don't really
Hrvoje> like the "poor man's common lisp" any more.
In Scheme, you could actually implement a "rich man's Common Lisp" and
model the stuff that's currently impossible to model in Emacs Lisp.
> There must be a misunderstanding here, Hrvoje. My "battle
> assume you're referring to my Web page on the subject matter)
> *specifically* includes other options.
Hrvoje> Yes, but all the "Lisp engines" you mention are Scheme engines.
Yes, because that's what I have personal experience with. Send me a
write-up on CLisp or GCL or CMU CL, and I'll put it up.
Hrvoje> I've argued for Common Lisp, both in this thread and elsewhere, but
Hrvoje> you kept rejecting my arguments as either irrelevant or false. So I
Hrvoje> don't know what else to say to you.
I'll try to put up the gist of what you've said. Maybe I have indeed
been partial. The thing I'm having trouble with is that I'm currently
lacking arguments which actually involve the languages involved; I
have mostly stuff of the nature "X is closer than Y to Z" or "X should
move in the direction of Y rather than Z." This doesn't help much
because it doesn't refer to the concepts, features, or idioms of X, Y,
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla