▲ 927 ▼ Every language has its niche (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 164 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (7 children) Emacs enters the chat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (6 children) Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) There was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) And that didn't work? I would have thought it would be quite popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn't get people to rewrite all of their user generated content. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) What are the main differences? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (6 children) Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) There was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) And that didn't work? I would have thought it would be quite popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn't get people to rewrite all of their user generated content. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) What are the main differences? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shareni@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) There was that one attempt to rewrite Emacs in cl permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) And that didn't work? I would have thought it would be quite popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn't get people to rewrite all of their user generated content. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) And that didn't work? I would have thought it would be quite popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn't get people to rewrite all of their user generated content. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shareni@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I think that Emacs itself was mostly implemented, but they couldn't get people to rewrite all of their user generated content. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh, right. That makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) What are the main differences? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
