From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-07-22T14:51:17+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Ruby Editor

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 11:03:59AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >I'm not sure that tracks.  You consider Emacs to be more customizable
> >because all the plugins are written in Elisp, but you consider Vim less
> >customizable because you have to know vimscript to write plugins.  Am I
> >reading what you're saying correctly?
> >
> >So . . . how are those two things different from one another?
> >
> >(leaving aside for the moment the ability to write significant chunks of
> >plugin code in other languages -- which I think is present in both, but
> >more obvious and common with Vim)
> 
> My theory: forcing writers of plugins to write in one language has the 
> side effect of creating a community of developers that can all 
> understand each other's work, for the most part. These best of these 
> plugins are more likely to be accepted into the core of the editor, 
> because they are already in the "preferred scripting language".
> 
> What I know: I have had an easier time setting up functions that do more 
> powerful things, because everything in Emacs seems to be based on 
> functions, and they can always be modified it one of a few ways (change 
> a variable, add a hook, or redefine a function). Maybe it's just that I 
> like elisp better than vimscript.

I think we may have to simply agree to disagree on the subject of
additional languages for plugin writing.  I tend to subscribe more to the
TIMTOWTDI principle of Perl than the TOORWTDI principle of Python.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions
your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."