[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
Date: 30 Nov 88 23:53:00 GMT
On the other hand, in Stallman's paper on EMACS, he says that it
exploits dynamic binding for flexibility.
Is the Scheme version (Edwin) as elegant as the Lisp version? Does
it fake dynamic or fluid binding explicitly?
As the author of Edwin, here's my "definitive" answer:
Naturally I believe that Edwin is as elegant as GNU Emacs; since half
the fun I get out of writing a program is making it elegant, I did my
best to accomplish this.
In some ways, it is less elegant: in particular, because Edwin was
about half built before I ever saw or played with GNU Emacs, many
parts of it are based on the original Emacs (most of the documentation
strings were snarfed directly from the TECO source code). Once I
found out about GNU Emacs, the design changed direction midstream, and
subsequent developments more closely mirror the GNU model. Future
work is likely to close the gap with GNU Emacs even more.
In other ways, I feel that it is more elegant: the programming model,
unlike GNU Emacs, fosters "object manipulation" rather than "editing
steps". By this, I mean the following: GNU Emacs (like Multics Emacs)
encourages the extension writer to view the activity of writing
extensions almost like that of writing keyboard macros; e.g. there is
always a current buffer, you switch buffers to change things in other
buffers, and there are a variety of things like `save-excursion' to
allow you to remember where you were in various ways. In other words,
many of the side effects that an extension performs are incidental
rather than essential. Edwin encourages you to think like a
programmer: you've got alot of objects lying around, and you
manipulate the objects directly; incidental side effects are
unnecessary, because there are no (or perhaps only a few) dependencies
on the current state. For example, if you want to change a buffer
other than the current one, you just get a pointer to it and
manipulate it using the usual mechanisms, which all accept buffers as
Of course, judging elegance in this way is pretty artificial. Both of
these programming models are elegant in different ways. GNU Emacs'
programming model is elegant because it is similar to the model of the
Emacs user. Edwin's is elegant because distinguished objects play a
much smaller role, and certain kinds of programming abstractions are
easier to capture; also it is similar to the way that programmers
think (i.e. lots of objects, and side effects on those objects).
Finally: Edwin does GNU Emacs one better in the dynamic binding
question, because MIT Scheme has dynamic binding. Edwin uses dynamic
binding where it is appropriate, and the rest of the time it relies on