Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

cliki.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#11

Post by creepycrawler »

pvinis wrote: post #7
creepycrawler wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opinion…

I did not mean to be aggressive, just direct.

There is no "Lisp community". In this family of languages, there are a bunch of individuals that sometimes form communities around areas of interest or particular fora.

If you looked into Clojure and Elisp, looking into Common Lisp or some Schemes could still be valuable, sure. All of them are in use. You can visit the relevant subreddits or chat channels or mailing lists to "get connected". Maybe even find some meetups or submit pull requests.

As far as I know there are no Emacsen in popular use today except GNU Emacs. There are some editors "inspired" by Emacs that are developed and possibly used by a few. These may be interesting and you may find them usable, but I'm not sure their authors would consider them part of the family of Emacsen just yet.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#12

Post by Ampersander »

pvinis wrote: post #4

I'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?

Clojure is the biggest lisp by far if we measure by amount of programmers getting paid to write it.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#14

Post by GrumpySloth »

LukeShu wrote: post #9
pvinis wrote: post #4

I'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 Lis…

Beware of performance issues though. Guile is extraordinarily slow on numerical code at least. Specifically, orders of magnitude slower than Chez Scheme, while the latter is just a couple times slower than LuaJIT e.g. I got really turned off from Scheme after running some benchmarks on a couple implementations. Although I know that for people coming from say Python it may even be an upgrade.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#15

Post by thrown_22 »

GrumpySloth wrote: post #14
LukeShu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Lis…

Beware of performance issues though. Guile is extraordinarily slow on numerical code at least. Specifically, orders of magnitude slower than Chez Scheme, while the latter is just a couple times slower than LuaJIT e.g. I got really turned off from Scheme after running some benchmarks on a couple implementations. Although I know that for people coming from say Python it may even be an upgrade.

Guile is the Python of Schemes. It is not meant to be performant, it is meant to be the glue that holds everything together in the GNU operating system.

That Python is the most popular language today should tell you how successful Guile has been at this goal.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#16

Post by mark_l_watson »

Ampersander wrote: post #12
pvinis wrote: post #4

I'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?

Clojure is the biggest lisp by far if we measure by amount of programmers getting paid to write it.

I didn’t know that, but I have some personal biases because I have had 6 or 7 years of pure Common Lisp paid work, a little over 1 year of Clojure paid work, and a few months of paid Scheme work.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#17

Post by gus_massa »

User23 wrote: post #8
pvinis wrote: post #4

I'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 n…

The original version of DrRacket was written in C, but it has been rewritten in Racket a long time ago. https://github.com/racket/drracket

I use a mix of DrRacket, WinEdt and Geany (with more color in the matched parenthesis).

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#18

Post by mark_l_watson »

Emacs is awesome because it nicely handles every programming language I use.

There was no mention in the article of the LispWorks editor, that was derived from Hemlock. A really nice editor to use when I need the features of the LispWorks IDE, otherwise my favorite is just Emacs configured for LispWorks and SBCL.

For the discussion topic: I am not sure if the LispWorks editor is faster, snappier, etc. than Emacs because it is compiled Common Lisp.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#19

Post by [deleted] »

thrown_22 wrote: post #15
GrumpySloth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beware of performance issues though. Guile is extraordinarily slow on numerical code at least. Specifically, orders of magnitude slower than Chez Scheme, while the latter is just a couple times slower than LuaJIT e.g. I got really turned off from Scheme after running some benchmarks on a couple implementations. Although I know that for people coming from say Python it may even be an upgrade.

Guile is the Python of Schemes. It is not meant to be performant, it is meant to be the glue that holds everything together in the GNU operating system. That Python is the most popular language today should tell you how successful Guile has been at this goal.

[deleted]

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#20

Post by tmtvl »

thrown_22 wrote: post #15
GrumpySloth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beware of performance issues though. Guile is extraordinarily slow on numerical code at least. Specifically, orders of magnitude slower than Chez Scheme, while the latter is just a couple times slower than LuaJIT e.g. I got really turned off from Scheme after running some benchmarks on a couple implementations. Although I know that for people coming from say Python it may even be an upgrade.

Guile is the Python of Schemes. It is not meant to be performant, it is meant to be the glue that holds everything together in the GNU operating system. That Python is the most popular language today should tell you how successful Guile has been at this goal.

I thought Gauche was the Python of Schemes: not super fast, but with a lot* of included batteries.

* See https://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche-refe/Library-... for an overview.

Post reply on HN