Having CommonLisp as the extension language would indeed be a great improvement over Elisp.
However, I am suspicious about the dependency of Lem on Webkit, which for me is rather associated with inefficiency and low performance than with the instant reactions that I expect from programming text editors, terminal emulators and tiled window managers.
The main problem is that it is very difficult for any replacement of Emacs to offer everything that already exists for Emacs.
In my opinion, the only way in which such a replacement would succeed would be if it would include an automatic translator from Elisp to CommonLisp scripts executable by it, with equivalent functionality.
I am not sure if I would bet one way or another on who has the richer ecosystem here.. They are both great. I would probably wager elpa has more packages in general than quicklisp, but maybe not necessarily richer/higher quality.
GNU Emacs is probably the easiest way to capture the spirit of working on the Lisp machines. Interlisp is an ongoing project that takes you even further down that road.
It's a matter of philosophy; would you rather have multiple small apps that do only one job or one "super app" that does it all?
Ironically, starting from the former, I've now turned my tmux into the latter with so many utility apps integrated into it. But now I can see the benefits of each approach. Maintaining "super apps" is more challenging due to the coupling of so many pieces to each other.
And building a consistent good experience from isolated tools is even harder. The problem is just hard and I think good criteria with the super app approach is the way to go.
I really like Spacemacs. It's discoverable, extendable, quite consistent.
> And building a consistent good experience from isolated tools is even harder.
Yes, I agree, which is why my tmux slowly devours my numerous small utility apps into itself! I haven't tried Spacemacs yet, too Vim-pilled at the moment..
Something like Lem[1][2] could go even further because of the richer CommonLisp ecosystem compared to Elisp one.
[1] https://lem-project.github.io/
[2] https://github.com/lem-project/lem
I chose the JS ecosystem. Why does the power of Emacs not belong in the browser? These days JS is a powerful enough FP language to do it.
They told me the future would have horrors beyond my comprehension.
But I understand this particular horror. I might even agree... :D
Having CommonLisp as the extension language would indeed be a great improvement over Elisp.
However, I am suspicious about the dependency of Lem on Webkit, which for me is rather associated with inefficiency and low performance than with the instant reactions that I expect from programming text editors, terminal emulators and tiled window managers.
The main problem is that it is very difficult for any replacement of Emacs to offer everything that already exists for Emacs.
In my opinion, the only way in which such a replacement would succeed would be if it would include an automatic translator from Elisp to CommonLisp scripts executable by it, with equivalent functionality.
I am not sure if I would bet one way or another on who has the richer ecosystem here.. They are both great. I would probably wager elpa has more packages in general than quicklisp, but maybe not necessarily richer/higher quality.
GNU Emacs is probably the easiest way to capture the spirit of working on the Lisp machines. Interlisp is an ongoing project that takes you even further down that road.
It's a matter of philosophy; would you rather have multiple small apps that do only one job or one "super app" that does it all?
Ironically, starting from the former, I've now turned my tmux into the latter with so many utility apps integrated into it. But now I can see the benefits of each approach. Maintaining "super apps" is more challenging due to the coupling of so many pieces to each other.
And building a consistent good experience from isolated tools is even harder. The problem is just hard and I think good criteria with the super app approach is the way to go.
I really like Spacemacs. It's discoverable, extendable, quite consistent.
> And building a consistent good experience from isolated tools is even harder.
Yes, I agree, which is why my tmux slowly devours my numerous small utility apps into itself! I haven't tried Spacemacs yet, too Vim-pilled at the moment..