From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/31160 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Python Emacs (was Re: The .. rule) Date: 22 May 2000 18:54:28 -0400 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <00May12.111709edt.115683@gateway.intersys.com> <200005121547.RAA12153@marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de> <200005172027.WAA16517@marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de> <00May17.163721edt.115620@gateway.intersys.com> <00May19.104238edt.116445@gateway.intersys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035167604 12501 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:33:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C7AD051F for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAB14312; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:25:01 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 22 May 2000 18:24:13 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29445 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:23:59 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from ariel.progiciels-bpi.ca (ariel.grics.qc.ca [199.84.132.74]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617C1D051F for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 19:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by ariel.progiciels-bpi.ca (Postfix, from userid 3) id 25F8EC8F1; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:57:04 -0700 (EDT) Original-Received: from titan.progiciels-bpi.ca.progiciels-bpi.ca (unknown [199.84.132.86]) by icule.progiciels-bpi.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E283090; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: Jim Davidson X-Face: "b_m|CE6#'Q8fliQrwHl9K,]PA_o'*S~Dva{~b1n*)K*A(BIwQW.:LY?t4~xhYka_.LV?Qq `}X|71X0ea&H]9Dsk!`kxBXlG;q$mLfv_vtaHK_rHFKu]4'<*LWCyUe@ZcI6"*wB5M@[m writes: > Jaap-Henk Hoepman writes: > > LISP [...] syntax is really horrible. > LISP has an extremely elegant syntax. If you've ever heard of, say, > C++ or Java, those are examples of horrible syntaxes. More exactly, LISP has almost no syntax, and that simplicity has elegance, especially since programs and data use the same simple syntax. However, at the conceptual level, some LISPs are more elegant than others. Emacs LISP is not the best I know in that respect! :-) Like Didier, I think Scheme is especially attractive. And Python is a kind of Scheme with a bit more of syntax and redundancy, increasing overall legibility. Object oriented programming is also more friendly than in Scheme. Guilified Emacs might easily become a bit repulsive from the mix of LISP styles, leading to impurity all over. While a Python Emacs would have enough distance with LISP to maintain enough clarity. But the definitive advantage of Python Emacs is that it would support Python Gnus :-). -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard