nifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 8 months agoEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldimagemessage-square145fedilinkarrow-up1772arrow-down136
arrow-up1736arrow-down1imageEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldnifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 8 months agomessage-square145fedilink
minus-squarePipoca@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·8 months agoEmacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·8 months agoThere was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl
minus-squareAnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoAnd that didn’t work? I would have thought it would be quite popular.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoI think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn’t get people to rewrite all of their user generated content.
minus-squarePipoca@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoEmacs is a bunch older than common lisp. One of its more idiosyncratic design decisions was using dynamic scope, rather than lexical scope. They did add in per-file lexical scope, though. It also just doesn’t implement a lot of common lisp’s standard library.
Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
There was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl
And that didn’t work? I would have thought it would be quite popular.
I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn’t get people to rewrite all of their user generated content.
What are the main differences?
Emacs is a bunch older than common lisp.
One of its more idiosyncratic design decisions was using dynamic scope, rather than lexical scope. They did add in per-file lexical scope, though.
It also just doesn’t implement a lot of common lisp’s standard library.