6 ms·

Use python instead of lisp.

by lysace 2y ago

m463 2y ago
I agree. Maybe it's just personal preference, since I think it's easier for me to think in python over lisp (which I've known for longer, but I still fumble through) I do think python would make emacs more accessible to a wider audience.
- iLemming 2y ago
  > I do think python would make emacs more accessible It would not be Emacs anymore. Emacs is specifically tied to Lisp. Emacs is not a text editor that uses Lisp as the configuration language. Emacs is a Lisp machine that has a text editor built into it. An "Emacs-like" editor built on Python might be interesting, but it wouldn't be a "better Emacs" or even "like Emacs", it would be a completely different thing. You may dislike Lisp, you may even hate Lisp, but the fact remains unchanged - there is an emerging class of applications that is significantly more difficult to build around non-homoiconic languages. Emacs is one of them. Stop fetishizing your favorite programming language as the quintessence of Emacs. The best one can do is to build a compiler/transpiler to spit out Lisp code, and people have tried that. Yet somehow, in over forty years nobody has succeeded in dethroning Elisp from ruling Emacs.
  - lispm 2y ago
    > Emacs is specifically tied to Lisp GNU Emacs is tied to Elisp. But Emacs is a much wider family of editors written in a multitude of languages. > Yet somehow, in over forty years nobody has succeeded in dethroning Elisp from ruling Emacs That might have several reason. Maybe few people are interested to reimplement GNU Emacs in a different language. Like nobody has succeeded in dethroning C from the Linux kernel, using Lisp.
    - iLemming 2y ago
      > Emacs is a much wider family of editors written in a multitude of languages. Sure, there's Guile Emacs, there's MicroEmacs - both not Elisp-based, still built on top of Lisp dialects; there's XEmacs, Remacs - both still use Elisp, there's also mg which afaik completely not lisp-based, but I don't know how much of it still 'emacs-like'. In general though, GNU Emacs is what people usually mean when they speak about Emacs, unless they're explicitly talking about others.
      - lispm 2y ago
        If you say only Lisp can be used to implement Emacs, would you mean a specific Emacs or an editor belonging to the larger family of Emacs-like editors? When I would speak about how to implement "an Emacs", I would include the option to use different programming languages. For example I could imagine that C and Python is a valid combination, even Python alone would be an option. Python can be used interactively, which would be sufficient for an interactive extension language. Here is an old Emacs timeline: https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html The actual historic Emacs wasn't written in Lisp and was not extensible in Lisp. It was written on top of TECO and assembly. It was extensible. The second and third Emacs were both written in Lisp (Zetalisp and Maclisp) and they were completely written in Lisp. At some point Gosling wrote an Emacs in C and Mocklisp. Stallman took that one and rewrote it into GNU Emacs. We have lots of Emacs variants written in languages like TECO, C, Fortran, ... Craig A. Finseth wrote "The Craft of Text Editing: Emacs For The Modern World" http://www.finseth.com/craft/ http://www.finseth.com/craft/ Chapter Ten of above book describes what Emacs-type means: http://www.finseth.com/craft/#c10 http://www.finseth.com/craft/#c10 Extensibility is a general feature and not tied to Lisp or GNU Emacs. The book contained a list of Emacs implementations. An newer list is here: http://www.finseth.com/emacs.html http://www.finseth.com/emacs.html You can see that there is a multitude of editors in the Emacs category. The list also mentions the implementation and the extension language. > GNU Emacs is what people usually mean when they speak about Emacs That's a bit sad. It's like saying "Linux" and think that its the same as "Debian Linux". Similar there are a lot of different Emacs-like editors. Claiming that there is only a single way to implement Emacs goes against the evidence that there are a lot of Emacs-like editors, which are not implemented in C + Emacs Lisp, including the original first Emacs. I would think that by far the most important Emacs is GNU Emacs, but I don't think its implementation language choice (C + Lisp) is necessary to implement an extensible Emacs-like editor. Also be aware even though GNU Emacs is a popular Emacs editor, there are some people who are using different Emacs-like editors instead. I typically use a Hemlock variant written in Common Lisp and Zmacs, written in ZetaLisp. Both core designs date back many decades, actually even before GNU Emacs existed.
ssivark 2y ago
There's the Leo editor, if Python's what you want: https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/ https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/
iLemming 2y ago
Dear Cooking Show, I really liked your recipe for the shrimp-avocado salad, and I tried to make it, but since I was out of avocados I just substituted them with potatoes. Also, it turns out I didn't have any shrimp, so I just used some hot dogs I found in my freezer. OMG, this recipe is amazing. You just made my day. --- That's what using X instead of Lisp to make "a better Emacs" sounds like, okay? Emacs is a Lisp-machine, it's built on top of Lisp, it needs Lisp to be Emacs. Otherwise it wouldn't be Emacs. Like at all. Don't be stupid, stop saying stupid shit like "python instead of lisp"...
- lysace 2y ago
  Don't be an ass.
  - iLemming 2y ago
    What? I'm not trying to, I'm trying to be funny. Sorry if you read it in your head differently.
    - lysace 2y ago
      > Don't be stupid, stop saying stupid shit like "python instead of lisp".
      - iLemming 2y ago
        Well, that is a stupid thing to say. You probably just haven't yet realized why.
        lysace 2y ago
        You're just so full of yourself, aren't you? You know the one true way to do programming, it's lisp and everyone else is an idiot? This was old before you were even born.
        2y ago

Use python instead of lisp.

by lysace 2y ago

Use python instead of lisp.

m463 2y ago

I agree. Maybe it's just personal preference, since I think it's easier for me to think in python over lisp (which I've known for longer, but I still fumble through) I do think python would make emacs more accessible to a wider audience.

iLemming 2y ago
> I do think python would make emacs more accessible It would not be Emacs anymore. Emacs is specifically tied to Lisp. Emacs is not a text editor that uses Lisp as the configuration language. Emacs is a Lisp machine that has a text editor built into it. An "Emacs-like" editor built on Python might be interesting, but it wouldn't be a "better Emacs" or even "like Emacs", it would be a completely different thing. You may dislike Lisp, you may even hate Lisp, but the fact remains unchanged - there is an emerging class of applications that is significantly more difficult to build around non-homoiconic languages. Emacs is one of them. Stop fetishizing your favorite programming language as the quintessence of Emacs. The best one can do is to build a compiler/transpiler to spit out Lisp code, and people have tried that. Yet somehow, in over forty years nobody has succeeded in dethroning Elisp from ruling Emacs.
- lispm 2y ago
  > Emacs is specifically tied to Lisp GNU Emacs is tied to Elisp. But Emacs is a much wider family of editors written in a multitude of languages. > Yet somehow, in over forty years nobody has succeeded in dethroning Elisp from ruling Emacs That might have several reason. Maybe few people are interested to reimplement GNU Emacs in a different language. Like nobody has succeeded in dethroning C from the Linux kernel, using Lisp.
  - iLemming 2y ago
    > Emacs is a much wider family of editors written in a multitude of languages. Sure, there's Guile Emacs, there's MicroEmacs - both not Elisp-based, still built on top of Lisp dialects; there's XEmacs, Remacs - both still use Elisp, there's also mg which afaik completely not lisp-based, but I don't know how much of it still 'emacs-like'. In general though, GNU Emacs is what people usually mean when they speak about Emacs, unless they're explicitly talking about others.
    - lispm 2y ago
      If you say only Lisp can be used to implement Emacs, would you mean a specific Emacs or an editor belonging to the larger family of Emacs-like editors? When I would speak about how to implement "an Emacs", I would include the option to use different programming languages. For example I could imagine that C and Python is a valid combination, even Python alone would be an option. Python can be used interactively, which would be sufficient for an interactive extension language. Here is an old Emacs timeline: https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html The actual historic Emacs wasn't written in Lisp and was not extensible in Lisp. It was written on top of TECO and assembly. It was extensible. The second and third Emacs were both written in Lisp (Zetalisp and Maclisp) and they were completely written in Lisp. At some point Gosling wrote an Emacs in C and Mocklisp. Stallman took that one and rewrote it into GNU Emacs. We have lots of Emacs variants written in languages like TECO, C, Fortran, ... Craig A. Finseth wrote "The Craft of Text Editing: Emacs For The Modern World" http://www.finseth.com/craft/ http://www.finseth.com/craft/ Chapter Ten of above book describes what Emacs-type means: http://www.finseth.com/craft/#c10 http://www.finseth.com/craft/#c10 Extensibility is a general feature and not tied to Lisp or GNU Emacs. The book contained a list of Emacs implementations. An newer list is here: http://www.finseth.com/emacs.html http://www.finseth.com/emacs.html You can see that there is a multitude of editors in the Emacs category. The list also mentions the implementation and the extension language. > GNU Emacs is what people usually mean when they speak about Emacs That's a bit sad. It's like saying "Linux" and think that its the same as "Debian Linux". Similar there are a lot of different Emacs-like editors. Claiming that there is only a single way to implement Emacs goes against the evidence that there are a lot of Emacs-like editors, which are not implemented in C + Emacs Lisp, including the original first Emacs. I would think that by far the most important Emacs is GNU Emacs, but I don't think its implementation language choice (C + Lisp) is necessary to implement an extensible Emacs-like editor. Also be aware even though GNU Emacs is a popular Emacs editor, there are some people who are using different Emacs-like editors instead. I typically use a Hemlock variant written in Common Lisp and Zmacs, written in ZetaLisp. Both core designs date back many decades, actually even before GNU Emacs existed.

ssivark 2y ago

There's the Leo editor, if Python's what you want: https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/ https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/

iLemming 2y ago

Dear Cooking Show, I really liked your recipe for the shrimp-avocado salad, and I tried to make it, but since I was out of avocados I just substituted them with potatoes. Also, it turns out I didn't have any shrimp, so I just used some hot dogs I found in my freezer. OMG, this recipe is amazing. You just made my day. --- That's what using X instead of Lisp to make "a better Emacs" sounds like, okay? Emacs is a Lisp-machine, it's built on top of Lisp, it needs Lisp to be Emacs. Otherwise it wouldn't be Emacs. Like at all. Don't be stupid, stop saying stupid shit like "python instead of lisp"...

lysace 2y ago
Don't be an ass.
- iLemming 2y ago
  What? I'm not trying to, I'm trying to be funny. Sorry if you read it in your head differently.
  - lysace 2y ago
    > Don't be stupid, stop saying stupid shit like "python instead of lisp".
    - iLemming 2y ago
      Well, that is a stupid thing to say. You probably just haven't yet realized why.
      - lysace 2y ago
        You're just so full of yourself, aren't you? You know the one true way to do programming, it's lisp and everyone else is an idiot? This was old before you were even born.
        2y ago