Elisp and CL (was: Re: [External] : Re: Testing whether a list contains at least one non-nil element)

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams wrote:

> And yes, the `cl-*' functions can be, and typically are,
> implemented in a performant way. [...]
>
> Emacs's `cl-*' emulation is not a real, performant CL
> implementation [...] But in some cases it could perhaps
> be improved.

Most definitely, and everything can always be improved.

We should stop thinking of Elisp as the configuration and
extension language of Emacs.

If we care about Lisp, which has been on the back foot for
decades to the point it's now defeated in all of Gaul. All of
it? No - there is still a small pocket of resistence. And it's
called Emacs!

We'll never, ever get a better storefront for Lisp than Emacs.

Elisp should be considered Lisp's last hope and we should do
everything we can to improve and modernize it every way we
can ...

So speaking of CL, why is that better? Because it is much
faster than Elisp, right?

But why can't Elisp be fast as well?

  If anything can start anew
  then everything must continue

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal