3 ms·

Why not... Lem?

• dismalaf 19d ago
  Lem's focus seems to be on being an "emacs" in and for Common Lisp. Lem throws away any attempts at compatibility with GNU Emacs. This is trying to be compatible with GNU Emacs.
  • cmrdporcupine 19d ago
    > Lem throws away any attempts at compatibility with GNU Emacs. That depends on what you mean by compatibility. Keybindings and conventions and the like are basically the same. I'm not actually convinced at this point on the value of a lot of the extant elisp out there.
    • dismalaf 19d ago
      > That depends on what you mean by compatibility. Emacs Lisp... > I'm not actually convinced at this point on the value of a lot of the extant elisp out there. I agree but lots of people probably don't.
      • cmrdporcupine 19d ago
        In a way sad to say it but these days if I'm missing some functionality I just ask a clanker to write it and it's done in a few minutes.
• oliverchan2024 19d ago
  Too hard to use.
• iLemming 12d ago
  Wake me up when all the 40-years of Emacs package development all migrated to Lem. Do you even use Org-mode? Anyone who tried it beyond just basic outline features knows very well - Org-mode needs Emacs to run. There's no such thing as "the clone of Org" that runs in anything else. We'd fly humans to Mars sooner.