On Jun 22, 8:26 pm, "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@info...>
wrote:
> rusi <rustompm...@gmai...> writes:
> > On Jun 18, 7:32 am, S Boucher <st...@yaho...> wrote:
> >> I've been using emacs since as far back as 18.59.  Still use it daily.
>
> >> However, I often wonder where Emacs is heading.
>
> > Ive been collecting some posts on this list that seemingly are
> > questions about emacs but in fact point to deficiencies. Does one,
> > two, hundred deficiencies make for a 'dying breed?'  Perhaps not and
> > the question of S Boucher needs to be dealt with more conceptually/
> > philosophically.  Unfortunately such a discussion invariably
> > degenerates into flaming/trolling.  So heres my bottom up list
>
> Some are contradictory.  Eg. reproaching lisp-2 and wanting more CL
> support (of course, they're not made by the same people).
>
> lisp-2 is a good thing IMO.  http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html

Thanks for that link... whether it actually says that lisp-2 is better
is another matter <wink>

>
> What's bad, is that the promise of having different embedded languages
> in emacs failed so far.  IMO because of lack of lexical binding/closures
> (but this is resolved in emacs-24), and to a lesser degree, lack of a
> usable namespace system (in this case, the obarray mechanism is there to
> be used by language implementors).  But with emacs-24, it could be
> possible to implement a scheme, a javascript and finish the emacs-cl
> implementation, java, etc, so that people could use and program emacs in
> their favorite programming language.

Yes this is one of the important issues.  If emacs were programmable
in one of today's popular languages its developer-base would leap up.
I believe however that trying to implement everything within emacs
(elisp) itself is a much more ambitious project than simply providing
bridges to existing implementations (eg python via pymacs)