In case people aren't following the emacs-devel list... Begin forwarded message:
> From: Thomas Lord <l...@emf.net> > Date: April 12, 2010 16:05:39 EDT > To: r...@gnu.org > Cc: t...@lifelogs.com, emacs-de...@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs (was: integer overflow) > > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 08:30 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: >> When I read about Sun's plan to make TCL the universal scripting >> language, I decided to oppose that. The plan I chose was to implement >> Scheme and support other scripting languages by translation into Scheme. >> Guile is the program I chose to adopt to do this with. That plan >> is what I am talking about. >> >> Whatever history that code had before its adoption for this plan >> is not what I am talking about. > > Sure. In one sense it was just your use of the word "original" > as in "original goal" that I was objecting too. > > Yet, there is another aspect of this which I think is > relevant to "Guile in Emacs" and to your notion of > supporting other scripting languages -- otherwise I > wouldn't harp on it: > > In those early days of Guile, after your decision, those > of us closer to the project discussed at considerable > length how exactly to support Tcl, Emacs lisp, and > other languages. Not just how to be able to run programs > in those languages but how to integrate them into a > cohesive environment. > > In each and every case we discovered devils in the details > and realized "Well, we can't." We could make a TCL-like > language that could run many simple TCL programs but that > would not be upward compatible - and have that TCL-like > language nicely integrated with the larger environment. > We could make an Emacs Lisp style of environment that > could run some Emacs Lisp code directly but that would > not be upwards compatible - and have that alternative Emacs > Lisp nicely integrated with the larger environment. > But we absolutely could not, for fundamental reasons, > directly support Tcl and Emacs Lisp with fidelity and > wind up with a sane programming environment. > > We realized that pretty quickly and tried (but failed) to > convey to you this notion that we could not promise to > seamlessly integrate those other languages - but that we > could offer a reasonable compromise. It was always > an oversimplifying exaggeration to say that Guile would > support all of those other languages in any strong sense > of the word "support". We could offer alternative > syntaxes. We could offer environments with simplified > evaluation models and more flexible types. We could > give people the *feel* of Tcl or Python or Emacs Lisp > but there was no point in trying to faithfully reimplement > those languages in detail. We failed miserably at > communicating that distinction, apparently. > > There was some momentary political convenience, back > then, around the burning question of which scripting > language would "win" and take over the world. Would > Tcl become the ubiquitous scripting language? Python? > It was an easy story to tell that Guile somehow transcended > the question for it could be both Tcl *and* Python (*and* > Scheme) depending solely on user preference. But it was > clear at the technical level that really Guile could only be > Scheme, pure and simple, although perhaps offering a > Tcl-*like* environment and a Python-*like* environment. > We - meaning you, me, and several others - were sloppy > back then about making that distinction clear. > > If anything remains of the shared *technical* vision > of a complete GNU system that is lisp-centric with > many extensible, self-documenting programs -- and if > sentiment remains that Scheme is a fine choice for > extension language -- then I mainly hope that people > pursuing that vision today won't go down the same rat-hole > that caught us up back then. "I, alone, survive to tell > the tale...". > > If you want a half-decent Scheme as your core > extension language then *make that work first* and don't > worry so much about compatibility with legacy code > in those other languages. There are no good answers > about how to cleanly integrate Emacs Lisp and other > languages with Scheme at that level. People have > thought about for, what, something over 15 years now > and the ones thinking about it today are getting > stuck going over the very same questions people got > stuck on 15 years ago. > > Meanwhile, with all the (often interesting and skilled - > admirable) work that has gone down that rat-hole in > those years, a thoroughly Scheme-based but not upwards > compatible Emacs could have been casually produced by, > say, 10 or 12 years ago. Coulda' Shoulda' Woulda' but > Didn't, as the saying goes. > > I just hope that the next 10 years of GNU generally > and Emacs specifically isn't going to be tied down > to the historic baggage of the "Tcl Wars" and the > misunderstandings it provoked. > > Someone -- that is to say "someone" -- should just > rip Emacs Lisp out of the C part of GNU Emacs, bind > the best parts of that stuff to Guile, and start *there*. > It's not a small job but it's also not a "more than > a decade" job. It could have been started much more than > a decade ago. It'd be, in my view, a giant leap back > towards the vision of a GNU system that was shared > among several key GNU hackers back in the early 1990s > and earlier. And it'd be, in my view, technically sane > in comparison to some more popular alternatives like > trying to support Emacs Lisp in detail. > > I'm done. I've said my piece. > > -t > > > > >
