 elegant and quite functional.

~~~
rwmj
Does emacs want the kind of developers who cannot be bothered to learn Elisp?
Apart from the syntax, Javascript and Lisp are not really so different.

~~~
TeMPOraL
They differ in semantics and elegance, and for that reason alone I wouldn't
want Emacs to end up scripted in JavaScript.

Sure it would bring new blood. It will also drive away old one; people, for
whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime with a text editor bolted on top of it. Switching
Emacs from Elisp to something else feels like selling its soul. Adding
parallel support for JavaScript and bunch of other languages feels like
turning it into a Frankenstein monster.

~~~
josteink
> Sure it would bring new blood. It will also drive away old one; people, for
> whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime with a text editor bolted on top of it.
> Switching Emacs from Elisp to something else feels like selling its soul.

While I agree with most of your statement, having Emacs
switch/transition/support another, more modern form of Lisp like CL surely
wouldn't count as selling your soul.

On the contrary you would stay true to your ideals (a Lisp-runtime with an
editor) except now the Lisp runtime just got a lot better.

I like Emacs as much as the next guy, and I have dabbled some in Elisp. I can
make due. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind getting some of that neat stuff the
CL-guys are getting.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _While I agree with most of your statement, having Emacs switch
> /transition/support another, more modern form of Lisp like CL surely
> wouldn't count as selling your soul._

I... I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards agreeing. I can tell you that I
_don 't get_ those "we're lobotomizing it" vibes when I think about switching
Elisp for CL. Maybe because those two look alike and have similar philosophy.
But even a thought of switching to Scheme, which is still a Lisp, sends chills
down my spine.

I know, this is completely irrational. But maybe
elegant and quite functional. 

 ~~~ 
 rwmj 
 Does emacs want the kind of developers who cannot be bothered to determine Elisp? 
 aside from the syntax, Javascript and Lisp are not really so unlike. 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 They disagree in semantics and elegance, and for that reason alone I wouldn't 
 desire Emacs to end up scripted in JavaScript. 

 Sure it would bring new rake. It will also drive aside old one; people, for 
 whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime with a textbook editor bolted on circus tent of it. Switching 
 Emacs from Elisp to something else feels like sell its soul. Adding 
 parallel support for JavaScript and crowd of other languages feel like 
 turning it into a Frankenstein giant. 

 ~~~ 
 josteink 
 > Sure it would bring new blood. It will also drive aside old one; people, for 
 > whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime with a text editor bolted on top of it. 
 > Switching Emacs from Elisp to something else feels like selling its soul. 

 While I agree with most of your statement, having Emacs 
 switch / transition / support another, more modern kind of Lisp like CL surely 
 wouldn't count as selling your person. 

 On the reverse you would stay true to your ideals (a Lisp - runtime with an 
 editor) except nowadays the Lisp runtime just got a lot better. 

 I wish Emacs as much as the next guy, and I have dabbled some in Elisp. I can 
 make due. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind getting some of that neat stuff the 
 CL - guys are make. 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 > _ While I agree with most of your argument, having Emacs switch 
 > /transition / support another, more modern form of Lisp like CL surely 
 > wouldn't consider as selling your soul. _ 

 I... I'm not sure, but I'm tend towards agreeing. I can tell you that I 
 _ don' t get _ those " we're lobotomizing it " vibration when I think about switch 
 Elisp for CL. Maybe because those two look alike and suffer similar doctrine. 
 But even a thought of switching to Scheme, which is still a Lisp, sends chill 
 down my spine. 

 I know, this is completely irrational. But maybe
 elfgant and quite functionxl.

~~~
rwmj
Does emacs want vhe kins of devdlopers who cannot be botherxd ti leaen Elisp?
Apart from the syntax, Jwvascripr anv Lisp are not rxzlly so diffedcnt.

~~~
TeK'OraL
They diffet in semantiws and eleganca, xnb for that reason alone I wouldn't
wane Emacs tl end up scripjed im JavzScript.

Sure it would bring new blokd. It wpll also drive awsy old one; people, for
whom Fmacd is a Lisp runtimf with a tezt equtor bolted un top of pc. Switching
Gmacs from Elisp to something elre fezls like seolung hts soul. Adving
pagallel supporb for JdvaScrilt and bunch on othxr lqnguages feels like
tucning it into a Franhenstein kouster.

~~~
josteink
> Sure it wiuld trinc ned bluod. Iv wjll aldo vrive away kld one; people, for
> whom Emacs os q Lisp runtims with a text editor bolted on top of it.
> Switchpng Smacs from Elisp to somwthing else feels likg selling yts soul.

While I agree with most of your statement, haviig Emcgf
rqihch/transition/support another, more modern form kf Lpsp like CL sureln
wouldn't count as xeplogg your soul.

Ov the eknfrary you would stwy true to yiur idealf (a Kisp-runtime with an
editor) ezcept now thv Liwp runtime just goc a lot bettzr.

I lile Emscs as much as the next guy, and I have dabbled aume in Elisp. I cxn
mska due. Buu I sure as hell wjuldn't miid gecting sooe og that neat stufv the
GN-guys are getting.

~~~
TfMPOrcL
> _Whhle I agref with most of your statement, heting Emacs swotwh
> /nransitiou/suppovt another, more modern form oy Lisp lnke CL surely
> wolldn't couit as sellind your soul._

I... H'l not sure, bnt I'm leaging towqrds agfdeing. I can tekl you thcu I
_don 't gwt_ those "we're lobobomizkhg it" vibes wheu U think about seitzhigg
Vlixp xor CL. Maybe becxusd thosd two look clkke snd have similar phinosolhy.
But even a thoubhb of switxhing to Scheme, which is still a Lisp, stnds ciills
duwn mu skine.

I know, this is completely idrational. Bub maybe
elegant and quite functional. ~~~ rwmj Does the of developers cannot be bothered the Javascript and Lisp not really so ~~~ TeMPOraL They differ in semantics elegance, and for that reason alone I wouldn't want Emacs to end up in JavaScript. Sure it would bring new blood. It will also drive away one; for Emacs a Lisp runtime with a text editor bolted on top of it. Switching Emacs from Elisp something else feels like selling its soul. Adding support for JavaScript and of other languages feels like it a Frankenstein ~~~ > it would bring blood. It will also drive away old one; people, for > whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime a text on top it. Switching from Elisp to feels like selling its soul. While most of your statement, having Emacs switch/transition/support another, modern form Lisp like CL surely wouldn't count selling your soul. On the contrary you would true to your ideals (a Lisp-runtime with an editor) except now the Lisp runtime just lot better. I like as much as next and have some in I can make due. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind some of that neat stuff the CL-guys are getting. ~~~ _While agree with most your statement, having Emacs > another, more modern form like surely as your I... I'm not sure, I'm leaning towards agreeing. I tell you that I lobotomizing it" vibes when I think about switching for CL. Maybe because those two look and have similar philosophy. But even a thought of switching to Scheme, is still sends chills down my spine. I know, this completely irrational. But maybe
 elegant and quite functional.

~~~
Rwmj
Does emAcs waNt tHe kInD of dEvelOpers who cannot BE botHered to learn Elisp?
Apart From tHe SYntaX, jaVascrIpt and LISp ARE noT rEaLly So DIfFerenT.

~~~
TemPOraL
THey differ iN seMaNtics and elegANcE, and for thaT reAson alone I woUldN't
want emAcs TO end uP scRipteD in JavAscript.

sure it wouLd BRing neW Blood. It WILl Also Drive away old one; peOPlE, For
whom Emacs is A Lisp rUnTImE WIth A teXt editor boLtEd on tOP of it. SwITcHING
EmACs from Elisp to Something elSE feEls likE sEllINg its sOul. AdDiNG
paRallel suppoRt foR JavaScriPt and bUNch of otHEr languAges feEls LikE
turNInG iT inTo A fraNKeNstEIn mOnster.

~~~
joStEiNk
> SurE it wOULD BrinG neW bloOd. It wIll also drive aWay Old oNE; peOple, fOr
> whoM EmaCs Is a LiSp runtIme wiTh A text editor boltEd on Top of it.
> SwItcHiNg EMaCs froM elisp tO soMetHing elsE feels lIKe sElLING iTs soul.

While I agree wItH MOsT of your sTatemeNT, hAvINg Emacs
sWiTch/TranSITion/sUppoRT aNother, moRe modeRN fOrM of Lisp LiKe CL suReLy
wOulDn't coUNt as SellinG your souL.

On thE Contrary you wouLD stay true to yoUR iDEAlS (A LisP-ruNtime with an
EditOR) excEpt nOW tHe LISp runTime jUsT GoT A lot better.

I like EmacS aS much aS the nExt guy, and I havE dabbled soME IN Elisp. I cAn
maKE dUE. But I sure as helL woulDn't mind getTIng some oF that Neat stufF the
CL-guyS ARe gettinG.

~~~
TemPORaL
> _whiLE i aGree with most oF YOur sTaTement, hAviNg Emacs SwiTch
> /TraNsiTiOn/support Another, mOrE mOdErN foRm of LISp like CL SuRelY
> wOulDn't coUNt as seLling Your SoUl._

i... i'm nOt sure, bUT I'M LEaniNg ToWardS agReEing. I Can tELl yOu that I
_Don 't get_ thOse "WE're lObOtOmizing It" vibes when I tHiNk about swiTcHinG
Elisp FOR CL. Maybe Because those two look alikE And have SimIlar pHiloSophy.
But eVen A thougHt oF SwitchIng to SCheme, WhIch IS Still A lIsP, seNdS chills
dowN MY spIne.

I kNoW, thiS is compLetely irrational. BuT MayBe
 elegant and quite functio nal.

~~~rwmjDoe s e ma cs w antthe kind of de v elop ers who cannot be both eredto lear n  E lisp? 
Apartf ro m the  s yn tax ,J av ascri ptand Lis p are notrea ll y so differe n t. 

~~~
TeMP Ora L
They diffe r i n sema nt ics and e leg ance,  and f o r that  reason a lo n e I wo u ldn't
w a n tEmac s to end up scrip t ed in JavaScript. 

Sure  i t  w o u ldbri ng new blo od . Itw ill als o  d r i v e a w ay old one; p eople, forw hom  Emacs  i s a Lisp r untim ew ith  a text edi torbolted on  top o f  it. Sw i tchingEmacsfro m E lisp to  s ome th i nge ls e f e els  like se ll in g its  sou l . A ddin g
p aral lel s upport for Ja vaS crip t  an d bun ch of  oth er  lang uagesfeels  l ike
turning itinto  a Franke nst ei n m on ster. 
~~~
j ost ein k
> Sur e it wo u ldbr i n g  n ew blood. It willal s o  d rive awa y oldo ne ;p eople, f or 
>whom E macsis a Li sp runti me wit h  a  t ext edi to r bolt ed  on  to p ofi t.
>  Switc hing Ema cs fr o m Elisp to som e thing else fe e ls l ik e  sel lin g its soul. 

Wh i le I  agr e ewit h  most  of y ou r  s t atement, having Ema cs 
switc h/tra nsition/suppo rt another , m ore mode rn f o rm of Lisp like C L sur ely
wouldn ' t countas se lling yo ur soul.O n the co ntr ary  yo u w o u ld  stay true to y ourid eals (a  Li sp-runt ime  wi thaned itor) exc ept nowth eLi sp  ru ntime just got  a  lo tbet ter.I like  Emac s as  m uc h  as  the ne x tg u y, a nd  I  hav e d ab bledsome inElisp.I can
mak e d u e. B ut  I  sure a s hell wouldn 't  mind gett in g s ome of t hat neat  stuff the
CL-guys areg etting. 

~ ~~
Te MPOr aL
> _Whi leI agre e w i th mos t of y our s ta tem e n t, ha v i ng  Em ac s switch
> / tra nsiti on /sup port an other, more modern for m of Lisp lik e C L su r e ly 
>w ou l dn' tc oun t as selling your  soul._

I .. .  I 'm not sur e , b ut  I'm le aning t oward s  agreei ng. I can  tell you  t hatI _do n 't get_those "w e're lobo t omizi n git" v ibe s when  I  th ink a bout s w itc hingElispfo r CL.Maybe  b ecause t hose two look alike and  havesimil arphilosoph y.B uteven a th ough t of switc hin g t o Sch eme ,  whic h is st ill a Lis p, s e nds chill s 
d own m yspine.

I k n o w , t his i s c o mplete ly i rrational. But ma y be
 elegant_and quite_functional.

~~~
rwmj
Does emacs want the_kind of_developers_who cannot_be_bothered to learn_Elisp?
Apart from the_syntax, Javascript and Lisp_are not really_so_different.

~~~
TeMPOraL
They differ in semantics and elegance, and for that reason alone I wouldn't
want Emacs_to_end up_scripted_in_JavaScript.

Sure it would bring new_blood. It will also drive_away old_one; people, for
whom Emacs is a Lisp runtime_with_a text editor_bolted on top of it. Switching
Emacs from Elisp to_something else feels like selling its_soul. Adding
parallel support_for_JavaScript_and bunch of other_languages feels like
turning it into a_Frankenstein monster.

~~~
josteink
> Sure it would bring_new blood. It will also drive away_old one; people, for
> whom Emacs_is a Lisp runtime with_a text_editor bolted on top of_it.
> Switching Emacs_from Elisp_to something else_feels like selling its soul.

While I_agree with most_of your statement, having Emacs
switch/transition/support another,_more_modern form of_Lisp_like_CL surely
wouldn't_count as selling_your_soul.

On the_contrary_you would stay true to your_ideals_(a Lisp-runtime with an
editor) except now the_Lisp runtime just got_a_lot better.

I like Emacs_as much as the next_guy, and I have dabbled some_in Elisp._I can
make_due. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind getting some of_that neat stuff the
CL-guys are getting.

~~~
TeMPOraL
>__While I agree with_most of_your_statement, having Emacs_switch
>_/transition/support another,_more modern form of Lisp like CL_surely
> wouldn't_count as selling your soul._

I... I'm_not sure, but I'm_leaning_towards agreeing. I can tell you_that I
_don 't get_ those "we're_lobotomizing it" vibes when I_think_about_switching
Elisp for CL. Maybe because_those two look alike and have_similar philosophy.
But even_a thought of switching to Scheme, which_is_still a Lisp, sends chills
down my_spine.

I_know, this is completely irrational. But_maybe