Live data from Hacker News

Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

cliki.net

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#31
post #30
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.

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

#32
post #25
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?

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

#33
post #3
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.

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

#34
post #31
post #30

Earlier 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.

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.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#35
post #32
post #25

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#36
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's hard to give a blanket recommendation on a go-to lisp. I would probably recommend Clojure and Racket over CL. The biggest downside of lisps IMO is the lack of well documented, maintained libraries, and CL suffers from it more than most. For some use cases CL is a better choice, and the tooling is excellent, but it's hard to recommend.

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#37
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?

Common Lisp is probably the closest thing to a go-to lisp, but there are also Scheme and Clojure. Depending on your requirements and preferences, any of Scheme, Clojure, or CL might be the perfect choice.

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

#38
post #3

Earlier 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?

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

Re: Emacs-like editors written in Common Lisp

#39
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?

In my opinion, Common Lisp is the environment to develop informed opinions about the tradeoffs and benefits of other forms of 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

#40
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…

Clojure now has Babashka and better integration with GraalVM if you are interested in creating CLI tools. Worth checking out.
Post reply on HN