nifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agoEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldimagemessage-square167fedilinkarrow-up1969arrow-down143
arrow-up1926arrow-down1imageEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldnifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 1 year agomessage-square167fedilink
minus-squareAnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down1·1 year agoEmacs enters the chat.
minus-squarePipoca@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoEmacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoThere was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl
minus-squareAnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoAnd that didn’t work? I would have thought it would be quite popular.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year 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-up2·1 year 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 enters the chat.
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.
Oh, right. That makes sense.
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.