From xemacs-m  Thu Apr 17 19:10:08 1997
Received: from mailbox2.ucsd.edu (mailbox2.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.54])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA12725
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:09:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sdnp5.ucsd.edu (sdnp5.ucsd.edu [132.239.79.10]) by mailbox2.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA08943 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by sdnp5.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA02821; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:11:24 -0700
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: CL features
References: <kig2089zx55.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<199704171341.AA011674481@martigny.ai.mit.edu> <QQclrp15367.199704171724@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Face: "oX;zS#-JU$-,WKSzG.1gGE]x^cIg!hW.dq>.f6pzS^A+(k!T|M:}5{_%>Io<>L&{hO7W4cicOQ|>/lZ1G(m%7iaCf,6Qgk0%%Bz7b2-W3jd0m_UG\Y;?]}4s0O-U)uox>P3JN)9cm]O\@,vy2e{`3pb!"pqmRy3peB90*2L
Mail-Copies-To: never
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 1997 17:11:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: Kyle Jones's message of Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:24:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <rvsp0p8a1g.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
Lines: 17
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.45/XEmacs 20.1

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

> Bill Dubuque writes:
>  > [...]
>  > Without introducing modern programming abstractions into
>  > e-lisp I fear that the e-lisp level Emacs sources will soon
>  > make good entries into 'most obfuscated code' contests.

> Because of its simpler evaluation rules, Emacs-Lisp is quickly
> taught to and understod people who would be daunted by Common
> Lisp.  I believe this is important for something that is meant in
> large part (but not totally) to be a customization language.

I concur.  Elisp is generally easier to teach to other people (modulo
the dynamic binding) because of it's simpler evaluation rules.  setf is
powerful but confusing.  This one of those areas where scheme tends to
do well also.

