>>105856141
>Helix + Scheme
RMS was right again.
>But in particular, we do not want to have extension languages other than Lisp. Emacs Lisp is the variant of Lisp that we've always supported, which has evolved along with Emacs. We can conceivably have Scheme as well, if we can sufficiently solve the problems, the technical problems of making Scheme and Emacs Lisp interoperate. We did some design work, I think that was with Tom Lord, whom the community will greatly miss. In the 1990s, there are challenges that remain; maybe it can be done. But a non-Lispy language would be a mistake. It would divert our development focus into areas that we don't need, languages that are less powerful, less beautiful, and less desirable for the purpose.
https://emacsconf.org/2022/talks/rms/
Guile-Emacs really needs to become a reality if Emacs desires to remain competitive in the future.
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GuileEmacs
https://codeberg.org/lyrra/guilemacs