It'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.
I have used Emacs for decades and TIL about undo-tree. Thank you!
Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
31–40 of 78 posts
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#32I'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?
If common lisp is the go-to Lisp, that's a sad indictment of Lisp itself. By commit counts in Github in first quarter of 2022, it doesn't even break into top 50 languages [1]. Surely a flawed metric, but it's damning when you have Elisp - configuration language for a freaking text editor - at #25, and Clojure at #28. [1] https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pushes/2022/1
Compare this to other popular languages from C++ to Python, which surely generate tons of additional work by continually changing the languages themselves.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#33It'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
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have used Emacs for decades and TIL about undo-tree. Thank you!
You might also be interested in vundo: https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/vundo.html . It is a newer alternative that is to my knowledge more robust, but depends on Emacs 28.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
If common lisp is the go-to Lisp, that's a sad indictment of Lisp itself. By commit counts in Github in first quarter of 2022, it doesn't even break into top 50 languages [1]. Surely a flawed metric, but it's damning when you have Elisp - configuration language for a freaking text editor - at #25, and Clojure at #28. [1] https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pushes/2022/1
What? Wasn't ANSI CL standardized in 1994? Besides incremental performance and security improvements, what needs to change? Compare this to other popular languages from C++ to Python, which surely generate tons of additional work by continually changing the languages themselves.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#36I'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
#37I'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 doesn't have an Emacs-like but it does have Cursive (for IntelliJ) and CIDER (for Emacs, like SLIME).
Scheme has Guile Emacs (currently in an unfinished state, needs fiddling to even build) and Edwin (comes with MIT/GNU Scheme).
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Unless I'm mistaken that means it won't be included out of the box but will instead be available to download and install from ELPA, right?
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#39I'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?
While you can compare Scheme to Clojure and Clojure to Racket, Common Lisp embodies the alternatives against which each was developed.
Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp
#40I'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?
I have used Clojure on and off for probably 7 years. But when I tried to distribute my program which was a CLI tool, it proved incredibly painful. Clojure startup time is really bad over a second in the best case and it gets worse the more libraries you include. This is not a problem if you are writing a web application, but it's terrible for command line applications. The community seems thoroughly disinterested in…