Subject: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:40:19 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Thomas Bushnell, BSG
| I think one difference in retrospect is that Common Lisp is very, um,
| non-lightweight.  Even the 1984 spec is *very* rich.  While that richness
| is one of the great strengths of Common Lisp, and one of the things that
| accounts for its popularity, it is also a detriment to using it as an
| extension language for something like Emacs.

  I disagree.  Emacs Lisp would have been a lot simpler if it were based on
  Common Lisp.  A lot.  Object-orientation Common Lisp style would have
  made Emacs a lot more customizable and much friendlier to Emacs hackers
  (old sense).

| People already complain about Emacs being too huge; adding in the entire
| library of Common Lisp would be, um, painful.

  Not so.  Trust me on this, I spent a year or so working on a design for
  CLEMACS, until it became clear to me that I would have to maintain
  _continued_ source-level compatibility with Emacs Lisp, and that caused
  me to rethink the whole idea and its desirability, because I had worked
  too long on Emacs Lisp to regard this as a simple, solvable problem.

  In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
  In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.