LangPollResults

Poll

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.)

Participate

Go to the EmacsChannel and type:

,langpollresults is also <nick>: <your answer>

fsbot will add your entry to the list.

Tabulated data

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%)

Prefers Scheme: 4
Prefers CL: 9

No is preferred to Scheme and CL: 7 (18.4%)

Off-topic: 10 (26.3%)

Prefers Scheme: 1
Prefers CL: 0

Entries (as of 2004-08-30)

[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

Addendum

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.


CategoryCode