What is meant to be the selling point over Emacs? Apart from scheme>elisp?
Arguably 80% of the emacs goodness is the terabytes of elisp written in the last few decades, if you break compatibility with that you need to throw in something pretty compelling.
Not the author, but I've heard many people complain about elisp and wish they could have written (name of Emacs package) in Scheme. I mean, there's a reason why the https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/WhyDoesElispSuck page exists (HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347697 (2024)). But what's the point of porting (package name) to Scheme if there isn't an editor in Scheme?
So that's my guess as to the motivation: solving the chicken-and-egg problem of wanting an Emacs written in a nicer-to-work-with Lisp dialect. Maybe the author will come along and prove me wrong; this is just my guess.
Comments
What is meant to be the selling point over Emacs? Apart from scheme>elisp?
Arguably 80% of the emacs goodness is the terabytes of elisp written in the last few decades, if you break compatibility with that you need to throw in something pretty compelling.
Not the author, but I've heard many people complain about elisp and wish they could have written (name of Emacs package) in Scheme. I mean, there's a reason why the https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/WhyDoesElispSuck page exists (HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41347697 (2024)). But what's the point of porting (package name) to Scheme if there isn't an editor in Scheme?
So that's my guess as to the motivation: solving the chicken-and-egg problem of wanting an Emacs written in a nicer-to-work-with Lisp dialect. Maybe the author will come along and prove me wrong; this is just my guess.