> Avoid Scheme/Lisp
>
> Scheme/Lisp should not be forced onto the user. It's error-prone and harder to read by humans, compared to Rust/TOML/Lua/...
I mean, any single language that's "blessed" for a plugin system will be "forced on the user," whether it's Lisp or Scheme or something else. So why specifically shouldn't Lisp be used that way? This phraseology betrays a bizarre, deeply unfair and wrong-headed double standard that views Lisp or Scheme as somehow inherently worse or more coercive or something to select as the plugin language.
> If upstream Helix moves to a Scheme-based configuration, this project will seek to keep a user-friendly alternative.
And sure enough, their second paragraph reveals this nonsensical view.
How in the world is Scheme or Lisp harder to read than Rust, a language that has almost as many complaints about its syntax as Lisp does and is much lower level and more verbose / complex?
How is Lua less error prone than Scheme or Lisp when Lua has all kinds of gotches around tables and arrays and is weakly typed?
And TOML is totally not sufficient as a plugin or extension language, and it's bizarre that they included it next to Rust and Lua. How in the world is it a fair comparison here?
Some people seem to have this weird, irrational hatred for Lisps. Just use proper paren completion like 99% of editors have and you'll be fine. And there are a lot of upsides, too.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that from Vim users, but still.
I agree with you, after working with Clojure for a while I started to really like the beauty of Lisp. But I also think the author can have their own preferences, and it is fine since it is their project, so they're free to do whatever they want.
Oh certainly they should be able to do whatever they want! I just think their framing of what they're doing, where they disguise a personal preference as a nonsensical and disdainful attack, is unfortunate.
Yeah, like I like Rust, but Scheme is the easiest to read language I've ever seen. The clarity is off the charts. It's even more pseudocode-like for my money than Python, if you ignore the parens (as you should).
> Avoid Scheme/Lisp > > Scheme/Lisp should not be forced onto the user. It's error-prone and harder to read by humans, compared to Rust/TOML/Lua/...
I mean, any single language that's "blessed" for a plugin system will be "forced on the user," whether it's Lisp or Scheme or something else. So why specifically shouldn't Lisp be used that way? This phraseology betrays a bizarre, deeply unfair and wrong-headed double standard that views Lisp or Scheme as somehow inherently worse or more coercive or something to select as the plugin language.
> If upstream Helix moves to a Scheme-based configuration, this project will seek to keep a user-friendly alternative.
And sure enough, their second paragraph reveals this nonsensical view.
How in the world is Scheme or Lisp harder to read than Rust, a language that has almost as many complaints about its syntax as Lisp does and is much lower level and more verbose / complex?
How is Lua less error prone than Scheme or Lisp when Lua has all kinds of gotches around tables and arrays and is weakly typed?
And TOML is totally not sufficient as a plugin or extension language, and it's bizarre that they included it next to Rust and Lua. How in the world is it a fair comparison here?
Some people seem to have this weird, irrational hatred for Lisps. Just use proper paren completion like 99% of editors have and you'll be fine. And there are a lot of upsides, too.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that from Vim users, but still.