nifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 5 months agoEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldimagemessage-square155fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageEvery language has its nichelemmy.worldnifty@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 5 months agomessage-square155fedilink
minus-squarePipoca@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoEmacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoThere was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl
minus-squareAnUnusualRelic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoAnd that didn’t work? I would have thought it would be quite popular.
minus-squareShareni@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·4 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-up0·4 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.