Différence entre les versions 18 et version actuelle
Résumé : Rollback to 2008-09-05 00:16 UTC
Pas de diff disponible.Regardless of whether you prefer Scheme or CL, would you agree that either of them would nevertheless be better than elisp for a new Emacs?
(See also SchemeAndLisp, WhyDoesElispSuck.)
Go to the EmacsChannel and type:
,lang-poll is also <your nick>: <your answer>
fsbot will add your entry to the list.
DISCLAIMER: The percentages might not add up to 100% since I rounded at the tenths place.
Yes [either Scheme or CL would be preferred to EmacsLisp]: 21 (55.3%)
No is preferred to Scheme and CL: 7 (18.4%)
Off-topic: 10 (26.3%)
[0] Riastradh: either would be fine.
[1] forcer: Scheme > CL > elisp, so either would be fine 
[2] jao: yes, i would
[3] odin: Brainf*ck. (Seriously, yes.)
[4] emu: either CL or Scheme is better, but Scheme would require a lot of extensions
[5] palomer: vi-script
[6] blicero: either is fine, provided that they let me make extensions to help me be successful with the fairer sex
[7] e1f: perl
[8] hoan: yes
[9] cococrisp: no. CL would be ok, but not guile.
[10] bkhl: yes.
[11] edrx: no - but maybe I’ll change my mind after seeing the code for this new Emacs
[12] erik: scheme or bust!
[13] mathrick: I’m cool with CL, as long as I get Emacs’ core redesigned from scratch. Scheme is butt ugly with it’s #t and #f, tho
[14] kensanata: no
[15] Khmar : A discussion on the wiki would be more fruitful than a poll.
[16] datamatrix: Common Lisp would be great IMHO 
[17] deego: IIUC, CL still doesn’t have a freely distributable language-spec or documentation
[18] buckfunk since learning elisp i’d prefer to continue with elisp - but scheme looks nice too … no CL pls
[19] JoshTriplett?: No; I’d rather see whatever features people want from those LISP variants added to elisp.
[20] aristocat: yes
[21] p00ya: so where does guile fit in
[22] Lukhas: Elisp is nice, but if i have to choose between CL and Scheme, i’d choose Scheme
[23] mwolson: no, stick with elisp, but don’t be afraid to add new features to it
[24] fledermaus: moving seems like a lot of work, better to add tail recursion, closures etc to elisp, I reckon.
[25] smitty1e: python, pymacs, boost::python, pl/python, pythonwin, let’s just get on the snake
[26] yukio:CL
[27] jemfinch: yes
[28] maxen: scheme would be better than elisp (I am sure), whether common lisp would be a real improvement, mhh
[29] jdavidboyd: no
[30] Sonderblade: PYTHON!
[31] hober: CL > elisp > scheme
[32] pipeline: CL > Scheme > Guile > Teco > Unlambda > Brainf*ck > A magnet on my monitor > elisp.
[33] sev: yes, and CL is much better
[34] TauPan: yes, definitely
[35] utis: ISLisp! Other than that I don’t care.
[36] sayke, yes, CL
[37] brett_: yes, CL
[38] davidw: yes, mzscheme
If you’d like to participate via editing this page rather than going the #emacs channel, feel free to do so in this section, right here.
See also ExtensionLanguageAdvocacy.