What If Python Replaced Elisp?

[choffman at dvcorp.com]

In article <xlxg0u0iy74.fsf at gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
  Matt Curtin <cmcurtin at interhack.net> wrote:

> I definitely wouldn't like any such change.  I don't see any real
> advantages that would be offered by using Perl, Python, or anything
> else so radically different from XEmacs Lisp.  My question is "what
> does XEmacs Lisp not do for you?"  If it's a question of not knowing
> the tool (as it has been in the case of some similar suggestions in
> the past), the correct answer is probably to learn the tool better
> instead of suggesting a replacement.

The big advantage I see runs something like this: look at all the great
elisp tools available even though a tiny fraction of emacs users can
write a line of elisp. Imagine what we'd have to choose from if all
those Perl, Python, Tcl, or VB programmers were hacking emacs macros!

Now I agree that rewriting emacs doesn't make a lot of sense. It would
take years just to reach the level of functionality that standard
elisp-emacs already has built in, and most of the packages I already use
would probably never get rewritten. But, boy, would I love it if there
were a COM API (or the equivalent) that would let me write macros in
Python, or tap into the vast pool of Perl hackers.

Chris



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.