Jean Louis wrote:
> But I can't replace Emacs Lisp with something else. I have
> got interface and it is sufficient, I need not think of
> plethora of elements. We manage employees, documents,
> accounting, reports of all kinds, I mean it is huge. I have
> switched from Perl to Emacs.
Oh, you are not replacing it alright. No one said it was bad
or distasteful. It is very good and many, including I, like it
and use it every day. So relax Jean, you are completely
normal ;) You have been good to Elisp and Elisp has been good
to you.
No, I think the frustration, IIRC, ws because
(1) No one else was enthusiastic about making Elisp better, in
part for its own sake, to make och try to make Emacs
a Lisp powerhouse up there with CL and Clojure (and
others); and
(2) even more so, I was frustrated with that boasting,
functional programming is superior (absolutely not true),
Lisp is built-in superior to other languages, Lisps syntax
is an advantage, Lisp programs are short and elegant (yes,
sometimes, before they get too long, e.g. gnus-sum.el [13
239 lines], Lisp programmers have a better mental
understanding of their programs compared to other
programmers and their sorry languages.
Truthfully and honestly, 2024, one would put it like this:
- if you care about/for Lisp, do it - that is, however, the
only reason to do it, if you don't care for it, there are
many alternatives, don't do Lisp, or do just a little
for culture.
- if you care about/for Lisp, but not Emacs, don't do Elisp,
there are again many Lispy alternatives that are,
marginalized as they may be, better that Elisp.
But if you care for Emacs, if you care for Lisp, and maybe the
bigger picture with the community, eco-system around it, yes,
why not? That attitude/boasting bugs me but that doesn't mean
Elisp is bad.
> ** Statistics
>
> ╔════════════════════════╦════════╦══════════════════════════════╦═══════╗
> ║ Total number of people ║ 242546 ║ Total Hyperdocuments ║ 62993 ║
> ╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
> ║ People in last week ║ 108 ║ Hyperdocuments in last week ║ 216 ║
> ╠════════════════════════╬════════╬══════════════════════════════╬═══════╣
> ║ People in last month ║ 261 ║ Hyperdocuments in last month ║ 841 ║
> ╚════════════════════════╩════════╩══════════════════════════════╩═══════╝
>
> All that above is managed through Emacs interface.
That's exactly right, that's how you do it, Jean! Digits and
order bring fortune to _everyone_.
Here is a screenshot of it:
https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-data/jeans-hypertable.png
I also try to make an honest buck now and then.
Did you hear of the next installment of Police Quest,
Sierra-On Line's old franchise, that is coming for Emacs?
https://dataswamp.org/~incal/sneak/police.png
> So if Python is better, it is for me personal issue, not
> technical issue. I have got no oversight and capacity to
> measure what is better.
It is better in the sense, give 100 programmers 100 programs
to write, then do the same to 100 other programmers but the
same task, one group uses Python and one uses Elisp, what will
happen with 100% certainty is that the Python guys will
- complete their task (all 100? possible)
- complete many, many more programs
- their programs will be much better
- they will do it faster, i.e., less man hours
- and with much less frustration during the process
PS. EOD, can't do this anymore, okay? :) DS.
--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
