3 ms·

Interesting. Any idea on why it's not got more traction? Or is it actually on track to become the canonical emacs? Reading that LWN article, it looks like Gu

by fatbird 10y ago

Interesting. Any idea on why it's not got more traction? Or is it actually on track to become the canonical emacs? Reading that LWN article, it looks like Guile wasn't a great choice from a community perspective, but more than that, by working internally to the emacs project it's subjected itself to internal standards of interoperability that it'll never really be able to hit (where a pseudo-hostile fork like xEmacs was might have sufficient momentum to force some accommodation).

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
It sorta works, but it's hard to keep it working, so people don't really do much with it. Shockingly, the compatability was pretty good, last I checked. If you really want an emacs written in a sane Lisp, and don't mind losing gnuemacs compatability, check out Hemlock. or Edwin.
- draven 10y ago
  > check out Hemlock. or Edwin. Or Climacs https://www.common-lisp.net/project/climacs/ https://www.common-lisp.net/project/climacs/ It seems there's a rewrite as well: https://github.com/robert-strandh/Second-Climacs https://github.com/robert-strandh/Second-Climacs
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    Oh. I forgot Climacs. Well, there you go. Another CL editor.
    - lispm 10y ago
      Here is another one: https://github.com/cxxxr/lem https://github.com/cxxxr/lem
sedachv 10y ago
> Reading that LWN article, it looks like Guile wasn't a great choice from a community perspective I think going forward it will be. Between Guile-Emacs, Guix, and GNU Shepherd you have the best-supported Lisp Machine operating system analogue available right now: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ I am excited about GuixSD and I think a lot of other people will be.
- armitron 10y ago
  No it wont, at least as far as Emacs is concerned. Nobody is stepping up to do the work, plus Guile has serious bugs on Windows and OSX, single-digit number of developers and few, if any, users. So Guile Emacs is really a pipe dream that people like to bring up from time to time.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    > Nobody is stepping up to do the work, plus Guile has serious bugs on Windows and OSX, single-digit number of developers and few, if any, users. So Guile Emacs is really a pipe dream that people like to bring up from time to time. You forgot to mention that BSD is dying. This state of affairs is different from any other Lisp implementation how? And why would it stop progress from being made?
    - armitron 10y ago
      I've been happily running SBCL and CCL on Linux and OSX for years without issues. CCL on Windows too. Guile has 1-2 people working on it part-time, and Windows/OSX are not a priority because: + GNU project, duh. + Nobody in Guile-land cares about Windows/OSX enough to step up and fix issues. + Even if they did, Stallman would tell them not to. So the state of affairs is indeed very different from the CL Lisp implementations. Not to mention, Guile has pretty much no userbase to speak of. There are commercial entities releasing products with SBCL and CCL in addition to the very healthy opensource community.
- lispm 10y ago
  > best-supported Lisp Machine operating system analogue Hardly. GNU is far from anything Lisp Machine. The Lisp Machine was never a system hacked up by scripts running on top of some Unix copy with a fancy name.

by fatbird 10y ago

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

It sorta works, but it's hard to keep it working, so people don't really do much with it. Shockingly, the compatability was pretty good, last I checked. If you really want an emacs written in a sane Lisp, and don't mind losing gnuemacs compatability, check out Hemlock. or Edwin.

draven 10y ago
> check out Hemlock. or Edwin. Or Climacs https://www.common-lisp.net/project/climacs/ https://www.common-lisp.net/project/climacs/ It seems there's a rewrite as well: https://github.com/robert-strandh/Second-Climacs https://github.com/robert-strandh/Second-Climacs
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Oh. I forgot Climacs. Well, there you go. Another CL editor.
  - lispm 10y ago
    Here is another one: https://github.com/cxxxr/lem https://github.com/cxxxr/lem

sedachv 10y ago

> Reading that LWN article, it looks like Guile wasn't a great choice from a community perspective I think going forward it will be. Between Guile-Emacs, Guix, and GNU Shepherd you have the best-supported Lisp Machine operating system analogue available right now: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ I am excited about GuixSD and I think a lot of other people will be.

armitron 10y ago
No it wont, at least as far as Emacs is concerned. Nobody is stepping up to do the work, plus Guile has serious bugs on Windows and OSX, single-digit number of developers and few, if any, users. So Guile Emacs is really a pipe dream that people like to bring up from time to time.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > Nobody is stepping up to do the work, plus Guile has serious bugs on Windows and OSX, single-digit number of developers and few, if any, users. So Guile Emacs is really a pipe dream that people like to bring up from time to time. You forgot to mention that BSD is dying. This state of affairs is different from any other Lisp implementation how? And why would it stop progress from being made?
  - armitron 10y ago
    I've been happily running SBCL and CCL on Linux and OSX for years without issues. CCL on Windows too. Guile has 1-2 people working on it part-time, and Windows/OSX are not a priority because: + GNU project, duh. + Nobody in Guile-land cares about Windows/OSX enough to step up and fix issues. + Even if they did, Stallman would tell them not to. So the state of affairs is indeed very different from the CL Lisp implementations. Not to mention, Guile has pretty much no userbase to speak of. There are commercial entities releasing products with SBCL and CCL in addition to the very healthy opensource community.
lispm 10y ago
> best-supported Lisp Machine operating system analogue Hardly. GNU is far from anything Lisp Machine. The Lisp Machine was never a system hacked up by scripts running on top of some Unix copy with a fancy name.