Clarifying some things about Guile-Emacs

This is a good clarification. I was worried about Scheme becoming the &quot;official&quot; Emacs extension language, which I think is a bad idea. Getting a better&#x2F;faster Elisp engine is a good goal.<p>I can&#x27;t help but think that Emacs is a local maximum: it works well enough that people don&#x27;t take on the task of implementing huge changes. People who demand a lot from Emacs learn how to do things in Elisp and just get on.<p>As for the future, I would love to see an Emacs implemented in Clojure (no, not ClojureScript, Clojure on the JVM). I think approaching this task with any Lisp-like language other than Clojure is misguided, because it doesn&#x27;t take concurrency into account. Clojure is the only Lisp-family language which gets concurrency right. Also, I&#x27;d love to have easy access to Java libraries. But, that&#x27;s just me dreaming.

Also notice on a different branch of the thread, where rms says, &quot;Guile is the direction we should go, if at all possible.&quot; It sounds to me like Guile, at least as Emacs&#x27; elisp implementation, is one way Emacs <i>could</i> go, a way it <i>should</i> go, and the way rms <i>says</i> it should go; all that suggests strongly that it is the way it <i>will</i> go.

Awesome! I like how he clarifies what this is, isn&#x27;t and what state it is in. I was definitely wondering where this project was and where it was heading.<p>I also appreciate how he claims it build cleanly too. Almost feel like building it and trying it myself :-)

I think the most important thing would be for the community to understand what ports and what doesn&#x27;t port from the elisp version that everyone uses- until then I don&#x27;t think many will be able to make an informed decision regarding the risks of migrating.