11–20 of 78 posts
I agree Emacs Lisp is pretty inferior as far as lisps go, but IMO this seems pretty misguided. Technically impressive, I'm sure, but will it be around for another 30 years? If someone writes a module using this, will I be able to rely on that module keeping on working for the years to come?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's solving a problem people don't really have. Isn’t "I want to script Emacs but I don’t like LISP" a problem to solve?
A better thing to answer would be why people prefer less powerful languages to the more powerful, and what can be done about it? Framed that way,this seems like an XY problem.
Clearly, power is the only measure one should consider when picking a programming language. And Lisp surely has more power than Go. I'm going to guess 36.1% more power, to be exact.
>and what can be done about it
We could always start performing eugenics to get rid of them.
... Okay, I apologize for being an ass. But I hope my points aren't lost; the way you're phrasing things makes it feel like you're bitter that anyone would consider using something that's not Lisp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's solving a problem people don't really have. Isn’t "I want to script Emacs but I don’t like LISP" a problem to solve?
Are there many (or even any) people in that situation, though? Who decides they want a script-able editor, but then chooses one scripted in a language they don't like and don't want to learn?
Probably not (except those who made that project).
> Who decides they want a script-able editor, but then chooses one scripted in a language they don't like and don't want to learn?
Mostly because the scripting language is not the first thing you think about when using an editor (just guessing here; I don’t have data on that). I started using Vim because its editing capabilities are quite powerful but its scripting language is really bad. Emacs’ LISP is great, but I can’t get used to the way Emacs commands work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better thing to answer would be why people prefer less powerful languages to the more powerful, and what can be done about it? Framed that way,this seems like an XY problem.
>why people prefer less powerful languages to the more powerful Clearly, power is the only measure one should consider when picking a programming language. And Lisp surely has more power than Go. I'm going to guess 36.1% more power, to be exact. >and what can be done about it We could always start performing eugenics to get rid of them. ... Okay, I apologize for being an ass. But I hope my points aren't lost; the way…
I agree Emacs Lisp is pretty inferior as far as lisps go, but IMO this seems pretty misguided. Technically impressive, I'm sure, but will it be around for another 30 years? If someone writes a module using this, will I be able to rely on that module keeping on working for the years to come?
I don't think inferiority of language is a strong argument either. JavaScript is pretty inferior as a programming language but that doesn't seem to have affected its popularity much.
I'm far from a JS fanboy but I think your point lends credence to the idea of using JS more than it strengthens the use of Emacs Lisp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>why people prefer less powerful languages to the more powerful Clearly, power is the only measure one should consider when picking a programming language. And Lisp surely has more power than Go. I'm going to guess 36.1% more power, to be exact. >and what can be done about it We could always start performing eugenics to get rid of them. ... Okay, I apologize for being an ass. But I hope my points aren't lost; the way…
I think GP's idea was that having a more flexible language is specifically useful for configuring Emacs, not that Lisp is better than Go in every imaginable case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP's idea was that having a more flexible language is specifically useful for configuring Emacs, not that Lisp is better than Go in every imaginable case.
I haven't tried the linked package, but it seems like the idea is that it can be used alongside Lisp. If so I'm not fully understanding how this isn't a reasonable idea. Surely _being able_ to use Go is not a bad thing and not useless?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP's idea was that having a more flexible language is specifically useful for configuring Emacs, not that Lisp is better than Go in every imaginable case.
I haven't tried the linked package, but it seems like the idea is that it can be used alongside Lisp. If so I'm not fully understanding how this isn't a reasonable idea. Surely _being able_ to use Go is not a bad thing and not useless?
There have been attempts in the past to do similar bridges to Python and Javascript IIRC, but they ended up nowhere since they didn't mesh well with the existing ecosystem.
No matter how bad people think Emacs Lisp is (an incorrect impression, Emacs Lisp has improved tremendously) it's still a powerful Lisp and only a Lisp would provide the powerful extensibility that Emacs has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't tried the linked package, but it seems like the idea is that it can be used alongside Lisp. If so I'm not fully understanding how this isn't a reasonable idea. Surely _being able_ to use Go is not a bad thing and not useless?
'Not useless' is not a high enough bar in software. Flexibility always adds complexity, and complexity is a cost. Sometimes that cost is worth it, but the benefit needs to be much larger and clearer than 'not useless'.