On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Bob Beck <[email protected]> wrote: > While interesting - isn't one of the points of mg that is its small > and *NOT* extensible? > > I mean, if I want extensible, I'll freaking run emacs. I actually > like having and editor > that is smaller than vim and emacs to use.
I think small and extensible are orthogonal. Even with the scheme interpreter, mg is still smaller than vi, let alone vim or emacs. If it were welding elisp on, that'd make quite an impact, but tinyscheme is tiny. :) You'll never notice unless you use it.
