Quote:
Originally Posted by ocicat
I recall discussion on tech@ about a year ago around adding a scripting engine to mg(1) as the thought was this would make it more flexible to individual tastes. tedu mentioned that he was working on implementing a small Scheme interpreter such that a number of Emacs extensions could then be used in mg(1). At the time, this was seen to be useful work -- adding a small Lisp-like interpreter to a small Emacs alternative. Take that, Mr. Stallman.
|
I'd argue that anyone who thinks chucking an interpreter into a text editor makes it an emacs alternative doesn't get emacs. I suspect most of them would never want to and that's fine, but the truth of it is that all the so called bloat is what emacs is all about. Wanting to do emacs one better but at the same time be minimal is a contradiction. Wanting to do emacs one better by using scheme instead of emacs lisp, well
if you can get there during your lifetime, then now we're talking.