 this is a part of Emacs's
appeal. You get attached to it, down to its very core.

------
HerrMonnezza
Tom Tromey started an automated rewrite of Emacs in Common Lisp in 2012, see
the announcement at:
[http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709)

I couldn't find any progress report after
[http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751) so I guess the
project has been abandoned early.

~~~
eschulte
I think this is the most realistic approach mentioned here, and tromey is
actually familiar with the Emacs internals.

~~~
taylanub
So is BT Templeton, the person who has been hacking away at Guile-Emacs GSoC
after GSoC. :-)

(They seem very skilled, don't be fooled by the fact that it's GSoC; no idea
what the skill level of people who take part in that usually tends to be.)

------
informatimago
I've got the impression that there is more Common Lisp code and programmers
around than guile.

~~~
Blackthorn
Literally dozens more.

Look, neither Common Lisp nor any Scheme implementation are exactly topping
the charts in popularity these days. This should be about the technical merits
of the choice, because I'm pretty sure Emacs Lisp both has more code and more
programmers (both represented in the forms of small scripts we've shoved into
_scratch_ and evaluated) than both.

~~~
muuh-gnu
The decision to go either Common Lisp or Scheme was made based on RMS very
personal reasons and conflicts with close-source Lisp machine companies during
the first half of the 80s.

GNU has had two common Lisp implementations under their umbrella at least
since mid 90s (CLISP (of Viaweb fame) and GCL (of Maxima fame)), but due to
RMS' hate of Symbolics and Common Lisp, all of the effort was invested into
making Guile run properly (which took them 25 years and still nobody is using
it) and the two Lisps were basically orphaned.
this is a part of Emacs's 
 appeal. You get attached to it, down to its very effect. 

 ------ 
 HerrMonnezza 
 Tom Tromey start an automated rewrite of Emacs in Common Lisp in 2012, see 
 the announcement at: 
 [ http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709) 

 I couldn't find any advancement report after 
 [ http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751) so I guess the 
 undertaking has been abandon early. 

 ~~~ 
 eschulte 
 I remember this is the most realistic overture mentioned here, and tromey is 
 actually familiar with the Emacs internals. 

 ~~~ 
 taylanub 
 therefore is BT Templeton, the person who has been hacking away at Guile - Emacs GSoC 
 after GSoC. :-) 

 (They seem very skilled, don't be fooled by the fact that it's GSoC; no idea 
 what the skill degree of people who take part in that normally tends to be .) 

 ------ 
 informatimago 
 I've got the mental picture that there is more Common Lisp code and programmer 
 around than craftiness. 

 ~~~ 
 Blackthorn 
 Literally dozens more. 

 Look, neither Common Lisp nor any Scheme execution are exactly topping 
 the charts in popularity these days. This should be about the technical merits 
 of the choice, because I'm pretty sure Emacs Lisp both has more code and more 
 programmers (both represented in the forms of small scripts we've shoved into 
 _ scratch _ and evaluated) than both. 

 ~~~ 
 muuh - gnu 
 The decisiveness to move either Common Lisp or Scheme was made free-base on RMS very 
 personal reasons and conflicts with close - source Lisp car companies during 
 the inaugural half of the 80s. 

 GNU has get two common Lisp implementations under their umbrella at least 
 since mid 90s (CLISP (of Viaweb fame) and GCL (of Maxima fame) ), but due to 
 RMS' hate of Symbolics and Common Lisp, all of the effort was invest into 
 making Guile run properly (which took them 25 years and still nobody is practice 
 it) and the two Lisps were basically orphaned.
 thls is a part of Emacs's
apkeal. You get attaeyed to it, dosn to itr very core.

------
HerrMonnezza
Tom Tcomet staeted an automated rewrkte of Emwcs in Cimmoi Lisp in 2012, see
thx announgzment wt:
[htcp://vromey.com/blog/?p=709](hjtp://tromey.com/tlog/?p=709)

I couldn't fknb any progress report after
[http://tromer.com/blob/?p=751](jttp://tromey.com/bjog/?p=751) fo I guess the
project has been abandonsd earlj.

~~~
eschulte
I think yhis is the most realistic appgoach mentioned hege, and tromgg if
qctually famkliar with the Emacs ihternals.

~~~
taylanub
So is BT Templegon, tke person wyo had been hackiig awaj at Guile-Emagx GSoC
dfter GXoC. :-)

(They seem yery vkioled, don't be fooled bb the fact that it's DSoC; no igec
what the skill level od peokle wvo txje oaru ii tgat uskalmy tends tk be.)

------
informarimago
I've got the ikpwvxsion that tgere if iore Common Lisp code and programmers
armuns than guile.

~~~
Blackthorn
Luterally dozens more.

Llok, neithqr Common Lisp nor any Scheme implementation are axactmh tipiing
gye charts in popularity these days. This should fs sbput the technigal merits
of the cnolcr, because I'm ptetty sbde Emacs Lisp both hws more code and more
krogrsmmers (both represented in rhe forms of wmall scripts we've shoved intu
_scrstch_ snd evaluated) than both.

~~~
ouuh-fnu
The decidion to gk either Common Lksp os Scheme was made based on RMS very
'ersoual reasuns snd cogflicts wihh close-source Lisp machlne clm[anies durlng
the first half of the 80s.

GNU hex had two cokmmn Nisp impjemenbations under treir umbrella ct least
fince mid 90s (CLIAP (of Vmaweb fame) agd GCL (of Maxhla fame)), but vue to
RMS' hatw of Symbolkzs and Common Kisp, all of the effirt was invested ikto
mayjng Guile run pxukeely (which took thdm 25 yvarx wtd still nobmdy ks jxing
ig) and the tco Lisls were basically or[hansd.
this is a part of Emacs's appeal. attached it, down its very core. an rewrite of Emacs Common Lisp in see the announcement at: [http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709) I find any progress report after [http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751) so I guess the project has been early. ~~~ eschulte I think this is the most realistic approach mentioned here, tromey actually with Emacs internals. ~~~ taylanub So is BT Templeton, the person who has been hacking away at GSoC after GSoC. :-) (They seem very skilled, be fooled by the that it's GSoC; no idea the level of who part that usually tends be.) ------ informatimago I've got the impression that there is more Common Lisp code and programmers around guile. ~~~ dozens more. neither Lisp any Scheme implementation topping the charts in popularity these be about the technical merits of the choice, I'm pretty Emacs Lisp both has more code more programmers (both represented in the forms of scripts we've shoved into _scratch_ and evaluated) than both. ~~~ muuh-gnu The decision to go Lisp or Scheme was based on RMS personal and with Lisp machine during the first half of the 80s. GNU has had two Lisp implementations under their umbrella at least since mid 90s Viaweb and GCL (of fame)), but due to hate Symbolics and Common Lisp, the was Guile properly took them 25 years still nobody is using it) the two Lisps were
 this is a part of Emacs's
appeal. you get attaChed tO it, DowN tO its Very Core.

------
HerrMonnezZA
Tom tromey started an automatEd rewRiTE of EMAcS in CoMmon LisP In 2012, SEE
thE aNnOunCeMEnT at:
[htTp://tRomey.coM/blog/?p=709](http://TroMeY.com/blog/?p=709)

I coULdN't find any pRogRess report afTer
[Http://trOmEy.cOM/blog/?P=751](htTp://troMey.com/BLog/?p=751) so i guess the
PrOJect haS Been abaNDOnEd eaRly.

~~~
eschulte
I think THiS Is the most realiStic apPrOAcH MEntIonEd here, and tRoMey is
ACtually FAmILIAr wITh the Emacs intErnals.

~~~
taylaNUb
SO is BT TEmPleTOn, the pErson WhO Has Been hacking Away At Guile-EmAcs GSoc
After GSOc. :-)

(They seEm very SkiLleD, don'T Be FoOleD bY The FAcT thAT it'S GSoC; no iDeA
wHat thE skiLL LEVel oF peOple Who taKe part in that uSuaLly tENds To be.)

------
iNformAtimAgO
I've gOt the iMpresSiOn that there is moRe CoMmon Lisp cOde AnD prOgRammeRS
arounD thAn gUile.

~~~
BlaCkthorn
lIteRaLLY DoZens more.

Look, neitheR COMMoN Lisp nor Any SchEMe ImPLementatIoN arE exaCTLy topPing
THe Charts in PopulaRItY tHese dayS. THis shoUlD be AboUt the TEchnIcal meRits
of thE choiCE, because I'm pretTY sure Emacs LisP BoTH HaS More CodE and more
proGramMErs (bOth rEPrEseNTed in The foRmS Of SMall scripts we've shovEd Into
_scRatch_ And evaluated) tHan both.

~~~
muuH-GNU
The deciSion TO gO Either Common LiSp or SCheme was maDE based on rMS veRy
personAl reasons AND conflicTs wIth CloSe-sOURcE Lisp machine cOMPaniEs During
tHe fIrst halF of The 80S.

GNu haS hAd two commOn Lisp imPlEmEnTaTioNs undER their umBrEllA aT leAst
siNCe mid 90s (cLISP (Of ViAwEb FAme) And GCL (oF maXIMa faMe)), BuT due To
RmS' Hate oF SymBOliCs and CoMmon Lisp, aLl oF The eFfOrT was invEsted into
makiNg guile run prOpErlY (which TOOk them 25 yeArs and still nobody is usinG
It) and thE twO LispS werE basicallY orPhaned.
 this is a part of Emacs's 
appeal. Y ou ge t a tta ch ed t o it , down to itsv erycore.

------
HerrMonn ezzaTo m  Tro m ey  star ted ana ut o m ate dre wri te of  Emac s i n Commo n Lisp in201 2,  see
the ann o un cement at: 
[h ttp://tromey .co m/blog /? p=7 0 9](ht tp: //tro mey.co m /blog/ ?p=709)
Ic ouldn' t  find a n y  p rogr ess report after[ ht t p://tromey.com /blog/ ?p = 75 1 ] (ht tp: //tromey.c om /blog / ?p=751) so I gue s s the
project  has been a b and oned e ar ly. 
~~~
e schul te I t hink this i s th e most re alisti c  approa c h menti oned h ere , a nd t r om ey  is 
a c tua l ly  fa m ili ar withth eEmacs  int e r n a ls.
~~ ~
ta ylanu b
So is BT Te mpl eton ,  th e per son w ho h as  been  hacki ng aw ay  at Guile-Emacs  GSo C
after G SoC .:-) 
(They seem v ery  sk illed,don't b e  fo ol e d by  the fact that it' sG S oC ; no ide a
what th es kill lev el  of  peo p l e who  tak e  p art in t hat us u al ly  tendsto  be.)
- --- --infor m atim ago
I' ve got t he im p ression that t h ere is more C o mm o n  L i sp c ode  and progra mmer s 
aro undt ha n g u ile.
~~~Bl a ck t horn
Literally doze ns  more. 

Loo k, neither Co mmon Lispn o r  any Sch emei mp l ementation are  exac tly toppin g 
the cha rts i n popula rity thes e days. Th issho uld  be a bo ut the techni c a l me ri ts
of t hechoice,  be cau seI'm  p retty sur e EmacsLi sp  b ot h h as mo r e code a nd  mo re 
pr ogram m ers (b oth r epre se nt e d i n the f o rm s of s ma ll  scr ipt swe've  sho v edinto
_s cratch_ a nde valu at ed ) thanboth.

~~~
mu uh -gnu
The d ec isi on tog o  eitherCommon Lisp or Scheme w a s madebas ed on  RMS  very
per son al rea son s  and c onflic ts wi th  cl o s e-sou r c eLis pmachine co m p ani es du ri ng
t he firs t half of the 80s. 
GN U has had two  co mmon L is p i m pl e men ta t ion s under their umb rella at l ea s tsince mid9 0s(C LISP (o f Viawe b fam e ) and G CL (of Ma xima fame )) , bu t due  to
RMS' h ate of S ymbolicsa nd Co m mo n Lis p,all of  t heeffor t wasi nve stedinto
m ak ing Gu ile r un  properl y (which took them 25 y ears a nd st ill  nobody i s u s ing 
it) andthetwo Lispswer e b asica lly orpha ned. 
 this_is a_part of Emacs's
appeal. You_get attached_to_it, down_to_its very core.

------
HerrMonnezza
Tom_Tromey started an_automated rewrite of Emacs_in Common Lisp_in_2012, see
the announcement at:
[http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=709)

I couldn't find any progress report after
[http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751](http://tromey.com/blog/?p=751) so I guess the
project_has_been abandoned_early.

~~~
eschulte
I_think_this is the most realistic_approach mentioned here, and tromey_is
actually familiar_with the Emacs internals.

~~~
taylanub
So is BT Templeton, the_person_who has been_hacking away at Guile-Emacs GSoC
after GSoC. :-)

(They seem very_skilled, don't be fooled by the_fact that it's_GSoC;_no_idea
what the skill level_of people who take part in_that usually tends to be.)

------
informatimago
I've got_the impression that there is more Common_Lisp code and programmers
around than guile.

~~~
Blackthorn
Literally_dozens more.

Look, neither Common Lisp_nor any_Scheme implementation are exactly topping
the_charts in popularity_these days._This should be_about the technical merits
of the choice,_because I'm pretty_sure Emacs Lisp both has more_code_and more
programmers (both_represented_in_the forms_of small scripts_we've_shoved into
_scratch__and_evaluated) than both.

~~~
muuh-gnu
The decision to go_either_Common Lisp or Scheme was made based_on RMS very
personal reasons_and_conflicts with close-source Lisp_machine companies during
the first half_of the 80s.

GNU has had two_common Lisp_implementations under_their umbrella at least
since mid 90s (CLISP (of Viaweb fame) and_GCL (of Maxima fame)), but due_to
RMS' hate of Symbolics_and Common_Lisp,_all of the_effort_was invested_into
making Guile run properly (which took them_25 years_and still nobody is using
it) and_the two Lisps were_basically_orphaned.