> > I'd be a lot happier voicing an opinion in support of something like this > > if I also saw diffs and interest in *using* them > > to extend functionality later or replace some things easier to do with > > scheme to make the code simpler - something kjell was alluding to. > > I think we can work towards that, but there's a bit of chicken and egg > problem here. I'm not inclined to do a lot of work if the answer in > two months is going to be "oh, sorry, perl would have been cooler". > The diff will only get larger from here. > > > A promise of "this is bigger and bloated now but will be really cool in the > > future" isn't so good if the people putting it in > > see getting scheme integration in as the goal - otherwise, congrats, you've > > Integration is one of the goals. I can't predict what extensions you > may want to write. I mean, mg already reads a .mg file. If we knew > what people were going to put in their .mg files, we could just hard > code it in the program and cut out the startup file bloat. > > That said, some concrete examples would help, both to make sure we're > building something useful and to demonstrate that it is useful. Why do > people still use emacs and not mg? For text editing not usenet > browsing or whatever. >
+1 to somebody providing concrete examples.
