> This seems to be missing the elephant in the room - elisp doesn't suck, it is just a lisp.
The article lists a few defaults of elisp that aren't shared by all lisps. What do you mean by this sentence?
The article lists a few defaults of elisp that aren't shared by all lisps. What do you mean by this sentence?
You can level complaints against Elisp. You can level complaints against anything. They aren't a big deal - Elisp supports variables, loops and if statements and that is enough to implement a text editor to a first approximation.
If the slate was wiped clean, the Emacs community would probably prefer that Emacs was written with Common Lisp. Then Emacs wouldn't need its own lisp reference manual.
Examples:
Lexical binding. SCHEME in 1975, Common Lisp in 1984. GNU Emacs in 2012.
Native compiled code. LISP 1 got that in 1960. There are now native compiled code builds of GNU Emacs since a few years.
Cooperative threading. Common Lisp had that in the 80s. Other Lisp dialects probably earlier. Now concurrent native threads would be a thing, so that Emacs Lisp too can take advantage of preemptive single and multi-core threading.