• emacs vs lisp machines (was: What have we lost?)

    From Javier@invalid@invalid.invalid to comp.misc,comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp on Mon Sep 12 14:27:48 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    eMacs is the modern Lisp Machine. How is it not?

    I agree. But elisp, the dialect it uses, has its limitations.

    Quoting from the elisp manual:

    GNU Emacs Lisp is largely inspired by Maclisp, and a little by Common
    Lisp. If you know Common Lisp, you will notice many similarities.
    However, many features of Common Lisp have been omitted or simplified in
    order to reduce the memory requirements of GNU Emacs. Sometimes the
    simplifications are so drastic that a Common Lisp user might be very
    confused. We will occasionally point out how GNU Emacs Lisp differs
    from Common Lisp. If you don’t know Common Lisp, don’t worry about it;
    this manual is self-contained.

    A certain amount of Common Lisp emulation is available via the
    ‘cl-lib’ library. *Note Overview: (cl)Top.

    Perhaps somebody who has worked with real lisp machines can comment further. --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
  • From Jeff Barnett@jbb@notatt.com to comp.misc,comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp on Mon Sep 12 12:02:32 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 9/12/2022 8:27 AM, Javier wrote:
    Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    eMacs is the modern Lisp Machine. How is it not?

    I agree. But elisp, the dialect it uses, has its limitations.

    Quoting from the elisp manual:

    GNU Emacs Lisp is largely inspired by Maclisp, and a little by Common
    Lisp. If you know Common Lisp, you will notice many similarities.
    However, many features of Common Lisp have been omitted or simplified in
    order to reduce the memory requirements of GNU Emacs. Sometimes the
    simplifications are so drastic that a Common Lisp user might be very
    confused. We will occasionally point out how GNU Emacs Lisp differs
    from Common Lisp. If you don’t know Common Lisp, don’t worry about it;
    this manual is self-contained.

    A certain amount of Common Lisp emulation is available via the
    ‘cl-lib’ library. *Note Overview: (cl)Top.

    Perhaps somebody who has worked with real lisp machines can comment further.

    One thing I miss entirely was the Symbolics keyboard: layout, action,
    and integration with Lisp. Another thing lacking in most (if not all)
    modern Lisp providers is robustness. We had one Lisp machine that was
    used as a development machine as well as the namespace server for about
    8-10 other machines. In one stretch it was up, continuously, for a
    little over two years - the computer room was shut down for some
    electronics work over the Xmas holiday and that capped the uptime. Since
    the machine "OS" was build in the same language and shared flavor
    (latter CL objects) you could do almost anything without leaving the
    Lisp abstraction. It felt clumsy returning to the world were Emacs was
    twisted in; slimy you might say.
    --
    Jeff Barnett

    --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
  • From steve g@sgonedes1977@gmail.com to comp.misc,comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp on Mon Oct 24 17:34:45 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    Javier wrote:

    Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    eMacs is the modern Lisp Machine. How is it not?

    I agree. But elisp, the dialect it uses, has its limitations.

    Quoting from the elisp manual:

    GNU Emacs Lisp is largely inspired by Maclisp, and a little by Common
    Lisp. If you know Common Lisp, you will notice many similarities.
    However, many features of Common Lisp have been omitted or simplified

    < Perhaps somebody who has worked with real lisp machines can comment
    < further.

    I still have a symbolics from 1986. it runs fine. The biggest difference is
    the hardware. the bitmapped display uses all PROMS. it needs to compile when starting.

    the mouse was ``taken by mistake'', with the manual. If you want pictures
    let me know she is awesome but old.

    the biggest difference with common lisp is lexical scope and namespaces.

    --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113