Extension Languages

[ Article crossposted from comp.editors ]




I have a question relating to extension languages for editors:


IS there any specific reason why one would choose to utilise an prefix
notation language for extensions to an editor as opposed to infix or
post-fix?


Emacs utilised its own implementation of lisp, while in the PC world,
Brief ( which has a distinctly Emacs feel about it ) uses a native macro
language which is also implemented al la prefix notation.


Does prefix notation provide some facilities for better performance for
interpretive languages. I am particularly interested since, as both Emacs
lisp and the Brief macro language were specifically written for their
respective products, I would have thought that the options would have been
available to utilise a more *natural* language interface. ( My definition
of *natural* here being similar to other procedural languages that most of
us write all day. e.g. C, Pascal, Fortran. I think you can get my drift. )


This post is not implying that anything should change in the cases sited
above. Rather, I am seeking more information as to why the particular
choices were made, what the advantages are that they provide, etc.


Thank you for any light you can shed


marks
--
Mark Stavar
Mincom
Juliette St
Brisbane Q Aust


Email: marks@jove.mincom.oz.au
[People implement what they like, and what's a natural programming style
is 100% a matter of opinion depending on one's personal experience. GNU
Emacs uses Lisp because Stallman likes Lisp. Epsilon uses C. Micro-emacs
uses Trac. It's all compiled into internal bytecodes; there's not a lot
of performance difference due to the language style. -John]
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.