Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#2It's nice to see more Emacsen, though without something like eglot or lsp-mode I don't think they'll really take off.
That said, I am very fond of the undo-tree package for Emacs and I doubt I could switch to any editor that doesn't have something similar.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#3It's nice to see more Emacsen, though without something like eglot or lsp-mode I don't think they'll really take off. That said, I am very fond of the undo-tree package for Emacs and I doubt I could switch to any editor that doesn't have something similar.
The good news is that Eglot is very likely going to be included with Emacs 29.1. See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-09/msg01... for a discussion on this topic.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#4I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today?
if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it.
if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#5I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
As a rule whenever the question starts with "do people consider", the answer is going to be: some do, others don't.
If you wish to "look into" Lisp, do the work: look at a bunch of resources, skim them, pick the ones that look intersting.
Asking whether to look into something is sometimes just a way to procrastinate. Questions like yours (not just about Lisp, but definitely about Lisp as well) are asked every day, and answers are (i) repetitive and (ii) abound. Just do the work.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#6I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
For better or worse I think e-lisp is here to stay, with all its
quirks. I think of it as "text processing Lisp", much as I think Perl
is still a useful go-to for practical extraction and reporting. The
world of other Lisps is rich and bountiful. I'm a secret Schemer
myself and love Racket, but I'm not sure emacs needs re-writing in
fresher dialects. What's the main case, does anyone know? It might be
nice if e-lisp still had room to mature and incorporate some lessons
from younger Lisps.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#7I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
As a rule whenever the question starts with "do people consider", the answer is going to be: some do, others don't. If you wish to "look into" Lisp, do the work: look at a bunch of resources, skim them, pick the ones that look intersting. Asking whether to look into something is sometimes just a way to procrastinate. Questions like yours (not just about Lisp, but definitely about Lisp as well) are asked every day, an…
slightly more aggressive answer than I expected but ok.
so first, yea bad phrasing, but that question usually implies "majority of people".
second, I have done work. I have coded even stuff in clj and cljs. little elisp. but I am not in contact with anyone doing lisp so I am disconnected from the "lisp community". hence my question.
in any case, my question still stands, but this time as "I'd love to get some opinions about lisps being used nowadays, and if there are emacsen in those".
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#8I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
It depends. Common Lisp is like C++ in that it’s a big multi-paradigm language. It supports functional, imperative, and object oriented programming out of the box. And thanks to macros libraries can add basically any paradigm you like to that list. Logic programming is one example. To me it feels like the lispiest Lisp. There is a large variety of libraries available. Many implementations can produce well optimized native code. Common Lisp is my personal go-to Lisp. If you want to learn Lisp for personal growth I believe it’s the best choice. There are jobs out there too.
Clojure is a good choice if the JVM is an option. You get access to the entire Java ecosystem. It’s been years since I’ve worked in Java land, but my understanding is the JVM is pretty fast now too. I like Clojure and it’s the only Lisp I’ve ever been paid to work in. I already knew Java, so my Common Lisp experience made it extremely easy to pick up. If you want to write Lisp professionally it’s not your only choice, but it could be the best.
Scheme is more focused on functional programming. I’ve only ever used it for studying computing science. I don’t know much about Racket, but at a glance it looks like a kind of Scheme++.
As far as I know, GNU Emacs is the most popular editor for all of the above. It’s largely written in Emacs Lisp, but the core and parts where performance is critical are C. Racket does come with its own editor, DrRacket, so maybe Racket users use that? I don’t know if it’s written in Racket but I’d suppose it is.
Incidentally, it’s my understanding that the Nyxt browser team intends to add full editing support at some point. If so, it will be a kind of web focused Emacs, which sounds interesting.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#9I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
Some folks'd say that yeah, Common Lisp is the go-to Lisp. Some folks'd say no, the go-to is Scheme.
Guile is GNU's common language runtime, sorta like Java's JVM or Microsoft's CLR. And Scheme is really the only first-class language of Guile; to a lot of people "Guile" means "Scheme". I don't know of an Emacs-like using Scheme, but there is an effort to implement Emacs-Lisp on Guile, and have GNU Emacs ditch its Lisp interpreter in favor of Guile. This would allow Emacs to use any language that can run on Guile... which mostly means Scheme.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#10I'm really curious: do people consider common lisp to be the go-to lisp today? if yes, that's awesome, I'll look into it. if no, what is the go-to? and is there an emacs-like using that lisp?
Common Lisp, Scheme and Clojure. Try each three and see which you like. I prefer CL, but that's because I develop programs in the large.