2 ms·

Why not just use the best known emacs lisp core, then? Like say emacs.

• notpushkin 8mo ago
  To allow it to run on other lisp dialects as well. (I’m just trying to defend GP’s point – I’m not a heavy lisp user myself, tbh.)
  • larsbrinkhoff 8mo ago
    Portability across Lisp dialects is usually not a thing. Even Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp which are arguably pretty close rarely if ever share code. You could make a frontend for dialect A to run code from dialect B. Those things have been toyed with, but never really took off. E.g. cl in Emacs can not accept real Common Lisp code. I'm not arguing against the idea, I'm just curious how it would work because I see no realistic way to do it.
    • notpushkin 8mo ago
      Gotcha. Too bad – I was hoping there was at least some (non-trivial) subset you can run on both :( Any idea why is it not a thing? Is this level of interop not practical for some reason?
      • larsbrinkhoff 8mo ago
        Lisp dialects have diverged quite a bit, and it would be a lot of work to bridge the differences to a degree approaching 100%. 90% is easy, but only works for small trivial programs. I say this, having written a "95%" Common Lisp for Emacs (still a toy), and successfully ran an old Maclisp compiler and assembler in Common Lisp. https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-cl https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-cl https://github.com/PDP-6/ITS-138/blob/master/tools/maclisp.lisp https://github.com/PDP-6/ITS-138/blob/master/tools/maclisp.l...