Re: Guile in Emacs

[Bruce Stephens]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> What matters is that we reuse some existing implementation and benefit
> from all the work done on it, so we don't have to spend time working on
> the Elisp byte-compiler.
>
> I like the idea of Guile not because it's using a "standard preexisting
> language with libraries and experienced coders", but because it'll give
> us a bunch of hackers working on efficient implementation,
> multithreading, ...

That seems like a stronger argument to me.  Back in 1995 (or
thereabouts) using scheme for better interoperability with other GNU
applications seemed a plausible argument, but I don't think that's how
things have worked out.  I doubt that replacing emacs lisp with scheme
would have much impact for interoperability, though removing one
extension language won't hurt.

[...]