🚀 go-pugleaf

:-> In comp.lang.misc, abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
:>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
:
:Tom> Genuflect when you mention that Holy Name (scheme, of course).
:
:You are really religious about this question, aren't you?
:
:Why do you think it is a bad idea to give users of GNU tools a choice
:of extension languages, instead of binding them too a single language
:such as emacs-lisp?
:
:Do you honestly think this is a step backward?

No.  

I just don't like that we don't get a real API, which is where this IM!HO
should be.  Instead, we merely a SPI -- a scheme programmers interface.
It only helps if you consent to program in scheme or some other language
that compiles into scheme.

The nice thing about a real API, like UNIX system calls, various
libraries, or even the simple stdin/stdout/argv one, is that you can make
different language bindings.  I can make forth bindings if I want so long
as I call the functions properly.  But I certainly don't have to go make
forth compile into scheme to do so!!

Haveing something better than scheme to program in is a great thing, and
I'm sure that the Gel people will do a good job at Gel (although mostly
replicating one or more existing languages).  But that doesn't address the
folks who just need an API.

So by all means, rescue us from elisp and write Gel, but don't omit the
API.  It's essential.  And it's (probably) not going to happen.

--tom
-- 
Tom Christiansen      Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker      tchrist@mox.perl.com

"There is no idea so sacred that it cannot be questioned, analyzed...
 and ridiculed." --Cal Keegan