Why not Ruby?

[Raymond Wiker]

Richard Riley <rileyrgdev at gmail.com> writes:

> Tamas K Papp <tkpapp at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:28:08 +0100, Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>> posts controversial but always interesting. His ELisp tutorial is far
>>> and away better than anything else out there for the programmer moving
>>> to Elisp IMO. He backs up his points with reasons and supportive
>>
>> Programmers don't "move" to Elisp.  Emacs Lisp is used out of necessity 
>> when you want to program Emacs.  No one in his/her right mind would use 
>> it in any other context, as far better alternatives exist (eg CL for 
>> those who like Lisp).
>>
>> Tamas
>
> "move to Elisp" was clearly meant as "moving towards it in order to use
> it". In this case to modify emacs. And to suggest that jobs of work are
> not done in Emacs is ridiculous. I am at a loss to really understand
> what you mean here in the context.

	OK, how about this: Xah's elisp code stinks to high
heaven. His code should not be studied by anybody who actually wants
to actually learn elisp (or anything else).