Re: DrScheme as Emacs-like kitchen sink

[Reini Urban <rurban@x-ray.at>]

Jerzy Karczmarczuk schrieb:
> Yes, Emacs is one, and unfortunately scripting in Lisp/Scheme languages
> is very susceptible to the process known as the spaghettisation (see also
> scripts in AutoLisp/AutoCAD, and in ScriptFu/Gimp), but this is avoidable, 
> provided a good design precedes the coding, and some functional programming 
> paradigms (e.g. the locality of state, lack of global variables modified by 
> anybody, God knows when) are followed.

I agree, but have to comment, using some design pattern buzzwords:

AutoLISP's spaghettisation is caused by the poor language besides the low 
user abilities. The only-with-global-vars-possible paradigm.

ScriptFu's spaghettisation is caused by low user abilities, besides the 
easier-with-global-vars paradigm.

EmacsLisp spaghettisation might be caused by the totally unstructered buffer 
and string handling code. There's no library which you may call "designed".
So you are doomed to reinvent-the-wheel, or do cut-n-paste programming. This 
nightmare is even worse than AutoLISP or ScriptFu.

Personally I could live with spaghettisation, because it is easier to 
"understand" for the inexperienced. heavily structured code and overly
abstract 
code is hard to understand for the beginners.
And, as you said, it is avoidable.

I really would like "some better emacs". but not with scheme. 
I'd really prefer common lisp, for the usual reasons.
-- 
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/