🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Brnstd writes:

>Emacs is written in C, with a very small percentage of ``helper'' code.
>Until someone can explain how a dynamically typed language would remove
>any length from Emacs other than in the helper code, I don't see why we
>should accept claims of extra productivity or conciseness.

Eh?  You say that if someone does not re-write emacs, presumably with
all it's features and internal variables, in a way that results in
less code, dynamically typed languages are without merit.  You
graciously imply that if someone were to do such a thing, you MIGHT
consider that dynamically typed languages allow productivity or
conciseness?  Ah, my friend, in the face of such logic, there is
naught I can do but admit defeat--not only for myself, but for all of
like mind.

I should mention though that emacs-lisp is a dynamically typed
language.  Maybe a bit less concise than it could be.  But in any
event, emacs-lisp is used for productivity reasons.  Even implying
otherwise invites a religious flame war :)

Or maybe you weren't talking about GNU emacs, but some other program?
In which case I'll guarantee you it's less expressive.

Your mileage may vary.

Raul Rockwell