> > > This is exactly the kind of direction I'd like fluxus to go in - I see > no reason that we can't gradually rewrite the entire editor in scheme > using our primitives. This would mean we could do a lot more work on the > presentation of the code and errors... > > So, Fluxus will eventually be like Emacs, except that our build-in Tetris will look better?
This will be great! Vi/Emacs debates won't have a thing on the debates about a Lisp-based editor v.s. a Scheme-based one! ... and if you are finding new and exciting ways of crashing, it's a > good indication that you are onto something interesting! > > At the very least I'm on to more advanced references than introductions to Scheme; that's interesting. I'm also learning a lot. I'm learning a lot of Scheme and every day I learn that what I tried the last was way too complicated and that it can be done in a far more simple way. That's really quite interesting too, compared to the many systems where things keep getting more and more complicated instead. :-) Yours, Kas.
