First, we must agree on what language to write it in.
I nominate C, for efficiency purposes, and that I am most comfortable in it. I also nominate Scheme, because I am proficient in it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 9:09
>>36
I don't understand, somebody please rewrite in plain English ;_;
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 9:16
Why write another text editor, when there is already Emacs. Why not write something useful, like a good scheme-mode for Emacs. Something like SLIME except for Scheme.
>>58
It will be harder to use than emacs, vi and ed. Learning it takes about 10 years. But it makes you more productive.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 11:02
WILL IT SUPPORT THE FORCED INDENTATION OF CODE?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 11:11
/prog/ could technically never produce an editor because if all /prog/rammers would agree on ONE set of functions for a text editor it would create a temporal parafoxx and they would all yell to their cabby 'yo homes, smell ya later', then look at their kingdom and they would finally be there, to sit on their throne as the prince of bel air
>>61
It will be incredibly hard to use, have arbitrary restrictions, only support Scheme, and forcibly indent anything it detects not to be Scheme so the code is useless.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 12:34
The help will be SICP. nothing more. nothing less
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 12:36
We will design and implement a set of library routines. Each user shall then construct their own editor from those library routines. Language portability is ensured by using C as primary implementation language; there are FFI-type bindings to C from nearly anything not-C.