Re: Emacs Book Vs Emacs Manuals

[Rusi]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:14:38 PM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Rusi  writes:
> 
> >> %% (replace-regexp "^\\(.*&.*&\\).*&\\(.*\\)"
> >> "\\1\\2")
> >
> > 51 chars (ignoring that things like ^& are shift
> > chords)
> >
> > F3 C-s & RET C-SPC C-s C-s RET C-w C-a C-n F4
> >
> > 16 keystrokes counting each chord as 1 1/2 keys
> 
> Elisp is by definition better because everything you
> can do with keyboard macros, you can do with Elisp -
> but not even remotely so the other way around.

Except that sometimes more is less
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html

> 
> When you have done something with Elisp, you can save
> that for future use. 


So also macros
(info "(emacs)save keyboard macro")

> What it is is clearly defined and easy to read and edit.

Readability is like beauty -- in the eye of the beholder.
[As my earlier example showed, emacs regexps can be ghastly]

> Not only that, if it is modular, as it should, you can use it for other,
> unexpected things in the future.

Sure...
(E)lisp is neat; doesn't mean its always relevant or appropriate