From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: "Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile." Date: 28 Sep 2002 03:31:26 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3242172686385318@naggum.no> References: <86wup7n3sr.fsf@gondolin.local.net> <3242144155107453@naggum.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1033183886 4685 129.240.65.5 (28 Sep 2002 03:31:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 2002 03:31:26 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:42276 * Jeremy H. Brown | Where's the harm? Have you ever tracked Emacs versions over an extended period of time and seen how much Emacs Lisp changes in a five-year period? Have you ever tracked anything that attempted to have two interfaces over an extended period of time? The definite harm is that Emacs Lisp and Guile /will/ diverge and that one is more maintained than the other, but even so, the community effort that goes into Emacs will need to be increased just to maintain status quo. And where are all the /new/ users and developers for Emacs coming from? -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.