who needs es..?

[alk@et.msc.edu (Anthony L. Kimball)]

   | es could be more like
   | Dylan.  If emacs could be recoded in es I'd be halfway to the sort of lispm-ish
   | environment I'll use in heaven.  

   In that case, why not just use scheme?  

The closer es comes to scheme the more programmable it will become,
and were scheme to come closer to es, it might just become useful as a
shell.  There are many recent scheme environments that I haven't tried,
but the ones that I have do not come any where near to integrating
unix, being in fact inferior to commerical common lisp environments
in that regard.  (I regard lucid 4.0 as marginally inferior to sh
as a shell environment, when run as an inferior emacs process -- I
don't think I could get away with writing install scripts with a
10MB executable, though, nor would I want to in this case, even
disregarding money and space and based solely on time.)

Besides, syntax is everything.

Shell functionality in scheme is a kludge and a deformity in my most recent
experience.  OOPL functionality in the current es would also be a kludge
and a deformity, in my naive opinion.  I'll try to scan that article you
mentioned on my next library trip, though -- thanks.  I'm eager to be
surprised.
 
Perhaps we should take this off-line if it strays any further from es.