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

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#51

Post by daptaq »

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #34
daptaq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you elaborate on "more robust"? I use undo tree currently and the readme suggests it has less features- does undo tree have problems that vundo solves? I don't mind undo tree needing to be enabled all the time or replacing undo commands.

I don't recall the implementation details, but I have heard of undo-tree landing in invalid states that can break the history. It might just be that vundo is newer, but I haven't heard of these kinds of stories for that package.

In my eyes it is the more idiomatic implementation.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#52

Post by BaculumMeumEst »

daptaq wrote: post #51
BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on "more robust"? I use undo tree currently and the readme suggests it has less features- does undo tree have problems that vundo solves? I don't mind undo tree needing to be enabled all the time or replacing undo commands.

I don't recall the implementation details, but I have heard of undo-tree landing in invalid states that can break the history. It might just be that vundo is newer, but I haven't heard of these kinds of stories for that package. In my eyes it is the more idiomatic implementation.

I’ve heard the same about undo-tree, was wondering if that was what you were referring to. I haven’t experienced it myself but maybe I’ll check out vundo before I do..

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#53

Post by BaculumMeumEst »

tmtvl wrote: post #38
BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Eglot already is available from ELPA, I think they actually are planning on including it in the box of batteries that Emacs ships with.

Oh wow, that’s awesome. I had thought LSP mode was more popular but I prefer eglot so that works for me.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#55

Post by brabel »

djha-skin wrote: post #22
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?

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…

For CLIs, Common Lisp is excellent.

I wrote a small program in CL and Rust, and (SB)CL can run faster than Rust EVEN FROM SOURCE! It's just completely mindblowing how fast it starts.

If you don't believe me, write a program that does something like count how many times each letter appears in a text file in CL and Rust, then run them with `time`. I can pretty much guarantee CL runs as fast or faster.

EDIT: my comment is meant for anyone curious about OP's clamis, I am obviously just agreeing with their point about CL's startup speed.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#56

Post by b3morales »

daptaq wrote: post #51
BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on "more robust"? I use undo tree currently and the readme suggests it has less features- does undo tree have problems that vundo solves? I don't mind undo tree needing to be enabled all the time or replacing undo commands.

I don't recall the implementation details, but I have heard of undo-tree landing in invalid states that can break the history. It might just be that vundo is newer, but I haven't heard of these kinds of stories for that package. In my eyes it is the more idiomatic implementation.

I have not used vundo, but it seems to be just a visualizer for the buffer undo list, whereas undo-tree takes over the undo system, replacing not just the commands but the data structure (https://github.com/apchamberlain/undo-tree.el/blob/help-in-v...). In other words, I think there's simply less surface area for vundo to have or cause problems.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#57

Post by Per_Bothner »

Per_Bothner wrote: post #43
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?

Kawa (like Clojure) runs on the JavaVM, but has a longer pedigree (from 1996), good compatibility with standard Scehemes (including R7RS), and has a stronger emphasis on performance: It has optional types and semi-decent type inferance so it is easy to write code as performant as Java. It also has fast startup, and is unopinonated on how you run and bundle applications: it generates pretty vanilla class files that in…

Sigh - two major typos, and I dont see a way to edit the answer. SO it should be "standard Schemes" and more importantly the URL is https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#58

Post by ducktective »

djha-skin wrote: post #48
ducktective wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked, ECL binaries are around ~10-20 MiB (including the shared file) and the price of having these binary sizes is start-up time which is around 500-1000ms. BTW, since you program professionally in CL, do you use Emacs? Doom or custom?

To be clear, unfortunately I do not program professionaly in CL. I use vim + vim-slime (jpalardy) + GNU screen + rlwrap. dotfiles here[1], here[2] and here[3]. Blog post about this will be written subsequently at https://blog.djha.skin . 1: https://git.sr.ht/~djha-skin/dotfiles/tree/main/item/dot-con... 2: https://git.sr.ht/~djha-skin/dotfiles/tree/main/item/dot-loc... 3: https://git.sr.ht/~djha-skin/dotfiles/tree/ma…

Very cool! Thanks for sharing the dots!

I'm a vim user too, but recently I've been considering Common Lisp mainly due to this post: https://mikelevins.github.io/posts/2020-12-18-repl-driven/

so I did a brief tour on Emacs (cause everyone uses sly) but both Emacs and CL take too much time so I've postponed them.

Would be nice if you describe your vim+cl workflow and how does it hold up to Emacs+Sly+Org-mode ™

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#59

Post by OrderlyTiamat »

tmtvl wrote: post #2

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.

is there a tldr on undo-tree's capabilities? I really like emacs' default undo behaviour, especially it's region bound behavior. undo-tree is kind of like vim right? Ive actually never really grokked that one either. I even remove undo-tree after installing evil as its an unwanted change for me, and evil has no option not to use it.
Post reply on HN