🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <490@blake.acs.washington.edu> mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes:

   LISP is nice.  But you hardly need LISP for a programmable editor.  The
   designers could have come up with a somewhat abbreviated system to handle
   most needs--one that could have fit into a third or so of the space.  Sure,
   it's spiffy--but is it so useful that it's mandatory?  Or am I completely
   missing the point?

Well, speaking as the author of one of the free PC Emacses (Freemacs),
I can attest to the fact that a somewhat abbreviated system is
probably insufficient.  I originally thought that 64K of code space
for Freemacs would be sufficient.  Then I started bumping into that
limit.  So now I have 256K of code space.  Now the limiting factor is
the capital letter used to designate libraries (yes, I know, I was
young and foolish when I decided on *that* convention.)

I have also worked with MicroEmacs, and it's macro language is a hack.
Syntacticly it's very messy.  I have also worked with Bill Frolik on
an editor for the HP-3000 that had a macro language.  The only
acceptable solution (IMHO) is to *start* with a programming language
and add editor primitives, rather than start with an editor and add a
programming language to it.

So LISP is a system that is probably going to have enough power.  Remember that
rms wrote TOPS-20 Emacs, and is conversant with the problems of THAT editor.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
"I saved the whales!" - Rebecca L. Nelson, 3.5 years old, on receiving her
Christmas present of a whale "adoption" certificate.  Bless her liberal heart.