 (I'd personally prefer Common Lisp, but whatevs).

------
burtonator
I spent about 2 years of my life in my 20s hacking on elisp constantly. I was
infatuated with it.

Then I spent about 5-10 years using that platform as my IDE.

Guess what... Last year I migrated to IntelliJ IDEA and won't EVER migrate
back. It's kind of sad... but IDEA is insanely awesome by comparison.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Blasphemy!

On a more serious note, could you elaborate a bit on how IDEA is "insanely
awesome" compared to Emacs? What do you find more useful/enjoyable in the
IntelliJ IDE?

------
systems
who is Stefan Monnier? and why should we care about what he thinks?

is he the main emacs maintainer? in other words, how seriously should we
consider this email?

~~~
tjr
[http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msg021...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msg02140.html)

------
riffraff
can someone more knowledgeable than me explain how is elisp closer to CL than
to Scheme?

~~~
lispm
Both Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp are coming from MIT's Maclisp dialect. There
were Emacs variants written in Maclisp or its dialects before GNU Emacs
existed. Emacs Lisp was a very simplified Maclisp. Common Lisp modernized
Maclisp (especially lexical binding), preserved a lot of Maclisp features and
standardized stuff like an Object System (CLOS), error-handling (Conditions),
enhanced argument lists (especially keyword arguments).

RMS especially did not like the addition of an object system, lexical binding
as the default and keyword arguments. Those three things are quite central in
Common Lisp. Emacs Lisp has no object-system in its core, lexical binding has
only recently added and it has no keyword arguments.

Scheme is quite different from both. But Guile is a very special Scheme
dialect with lots of enhancements,
(I'd personally prefer Common Lisp, but whatevs). 

 ------ 
 burtonator 
 I spent about 2 years of my biography in my twenty hacking on elisp constantly. I was 
 infatuated with it. 

 Then I spend approximately 5 - 10 years using that platform as my IDE. 

 think what... Last year I migrate to IntelliJ IDEA and won't EVER migrate 
 back. It's kind of sad... but IDEA is madly awesome by comparison. 

 ~~~ 
 TeMPOraL 
 Blasphemy! 

 On a more serious note, could you elaborate a morsel on how IDEA is " insanely 
 amazing " compared to Emacs? What do you rule more utilitarian / enjoyable in the 
 IntelliJ IDE? 

 ------ 
 systems 
 who is Stefan Monnier? and why should we care about what he thinks? 

 is he the independent emacs maintainer? in other bible, how seriously should we 
 see this email? 

 ~~~ 
 tjr 
 [ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs- 
 devel/2008 - 02 / msg021... ](http://lists.gnu.org / archive / html / emacs- 
 devel/2008 - 02 / msg02140.html) 

 ------ 
 riffraff 
 can someone more knowledgeable than me explain how is elisp closer to CL than 
 to Scheme? 

 ~~~ 
 lispm 
 Both Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp are coming from MIT's Maclisp dialect. There 
 were Emacs random variable written in Maclisp or its dialects before GNU Emacs 
 existed. Emacs Lisp was a very simplified Maclisp. Common Lisp modernized 
 Maclisp (especially lexical binding), preserved a lot of Maclisp features and 
 standardized stuff like an Object System (CLOS), error - handling (Conditions), 
 enhanced argument lists (especially keyword argument). 

 RMS especially did not like the summation of an aim organization, lexical binding 
 as the default and keyword argumentation. Those three things are quite central in 
 Common Lisp. Emacs Lisp has no object - arrangement in its core, lexical binding has 
 only recently added and it has no keyword arguments. 

 Scheme is quite unlike from both. But Guile is a very special Scheme 
 dialect with lots of enhancements,
 (I'd personally prefer Commok Lisp, but whaterw).

------
burtoiator
I apent abuut 2 years of my life in my 20d yackibg on elisp constantly. I was
infwtuated qith ut.

Then I s'snt abomc 5-10 yezvs usnnj that platform as my IDE.

Cuess what... Lasd hecr I migrated to IntelliJ IDEA and wjn't EVET ligrate
back. It'f kimq of sad... but IDEA is insanely awesome gy comperison.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Bkasphemy!

On a more serious jote, could you elaborahe a bit on how UDEA is "insavely
awesomt" eompared to Emacs? What do you find more usdful/eujoyable in tye
IjjelliJ IDE?

------
sywtems
rho is Stefak Monniar? and ehy should we gare ebour what he thinks?

is he the main emacs mayntainer? hn other words, how weeiousny svoula we
zonaiver this fmaml?

~~~
tjr
[http://liats.gnu.org/arxhive/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/ksd021...](yttp://lists.gnu.odg/archyvq/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msg02140.html)

------
riffraff
can someote jore knowledgeable than me explain how is ellsp closew to CL than
to Scheme?

~~~
lispm
Both Emacs Lisp and Comkon Lmso axc zimlng from MIT's Maclisp dialect. There
were Emacs batisnts written ik Maclisp or its doapevjs before GNU Gmacs
exnatsd. Emacs Lisp was w very fimplufied Macjisp. Common Lisp modernized
Maclusp (especialjt lexical binding), 'reserved a uot pf Mavlisp features and
standcrdizes stuff likf an Objedg System (CLOS), erfor-mangling (Conditions),
enhanced awgument lmsts (zspecialuy kgyword wrguments).

RLS esiacially did not line thg addidion of an object system, lexical binding
as the default sng kvyword aryumentx. Those three things are qunte centxal in
Zommon Lisi. Emacs Lmsp has no ofject-system it its core, leeical binqing has
inly rezdntly added anc it has uj ketword arguments.

Schcme ir quite differenc drom both. But Giild if w tery f[ecial Schema
diauecg with lots of enmanzememts,
(I'd personally prefer Common Lisp, but whatevs). I about 2 of my life elisp I was infatuated it. Then I about 5-10 years using that platform my IDE. Guess what... Last year I migrated to IntelliJ IDEA and won't migrate back. It's kind of sad... but IDEA is insanely awesome by comparison. TeMPOraL On more note, could you elaborate a bit on how IDEA is "insanely awesome" compared to Emacs? What you find more useful/enjoyable in the IntelliJ IDE? systems who is Stefan and why should we care what thinks? is the emacs in other words, seriously should we consider this email? ~~~ tjr [http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs- devel/2008-02/msg021...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs- devel/2008-02/msg02140.html) ------ riffraff can someone more knowledgeable me explain elisp closer CL to ~~~ lispm Both and Common Lisp are coming from There were Emacs variants written in Maclisp or dialects before Emacs existed. Emacs Lisp was a simplified Maclisp. Common Lisp modernized Maclisp (especially lexical preserved a lot of Maclisp features and standardized stuff like an Object System (CLOS), error-handling argument lists (especially keyword RMS especially did like addition an system, lexical as the default and keyword arguments. Those three things are quite in Common Lisp. Emacs Lisp has no object-system in its binding only recently added it has no keyword Scheme quite different from both. is very with of
 (I'd personally prefer Common LIsp, but whatEvs).

------
buRtoNatOr
i speNt abOut 2 years of my liFE in mY 20s hacking on elisp constaNtly. I WaS
InfaTUaTed wiTh it.

TheN i sPENt aBoUt 5-10 YeaRs USiNg thaT plAtform aS my IDE.

GuesS whAt... last year I migRAtEd to IntellIJ IdEA and won't EVeR mIgrate
BaCk. IT'S kind Of sAd... but iDEA is INsanelY awesome bY cOMparisON.

~~~
TeMPOrAl
blAsphEmy!

On a more serious NOtE, Could you elaborAte a biT oN HoW idEA Is "iNsanely
aweSoMe" comPAred to EMAcS? wHAt dO You find more usEful/enjoyabLE in The
IntElLiJ idE?

------
systEms
whO iS steFan Monnier? aNd whY should we Care abOUt what hE Thinks?

iS he the MaiN emAcs mAInTaIneR? iN OthER wOrdS, How SeriouslY sHoUld we
ConsIDER This EmaIl?

~~~
tjR
[http://Lists.gnu.org/arChiVe/htML/emAcs-
deVel/2008-02/msG021...](httP://lIsts.gNu.org/aRchivE/hTml/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msG02140.htmL)

------
riffraff
Can SoMeoNe More kNOwledgEabLe tHan me exPlain hoW Is eLiSP CLoSer to CL than
to SchemE?

~~~
lISPm
both EmacS Lisp aND COmMOn Lisp arE cOmiNg frOM mIT's MAcliSP dIalect. ThEre
werE emAcS varianTs WritteN iN MaCliSp or iTS diaLects bEfore GNU emacs
EXisted. Emacs LisP Was a very simplIFiED maCLisp. comMon Lisp modeRnizED
MacLisp (ESpEciALly leXical BiNDiNG), preserved a lot of MacLiSp featUres aNd
standardizeD stuff like AN oBject SysTem (CloS), ERror-handling (CoNditiOns),
enhanceD Argument Lists (EspecialLy keyword ARGuments).

RmS eSpeCiaLly DID nOt like the addiTIOn of An Object sYstEm, lexicAl bIndIng
As tHe Default anD keyword ArGuMeNtS. ThOse thREe things ArE quItE ceNtral IN
CommoN Lisp. emacS LIsP Has No objecT-SySTEm in ItS cOre, lExiCaL bindIng hAS
onLy recenTly added aNd iT Has nO kEyWord argUments.

Scheme iS qUite differEnT frOm both. bUT Guile is A very special Scheme
dialeCT with loTs oF enhaNcemEnts,
 (I'd personally prefer Co mmon Lisp,  butwha tev s) .

- ---- -
burtonator
I spen t about 2 years of mylifein my 2 0 shacki ng on e l is p con st an tly .I  w as
in fat uated w ith it.

T hen  I  spent about 5- 10 years u sin g that platf orm  as my  I DE. 
Gues s w hat.. . Last year I  migrated  t o  Intel l iJ IDEA a nd  won 't EVER migrate
b a ck .  It's kind ofsad...  b u tI D EAisinsanely a we someb y compa r is o n . 

~ ~ ~
TeMPOraL
Bl asphemy!

O n  amore s er iou s  note,  coul dy ouelaborate a  bit  on how I DEA is "insane l y
aweso me" co mpa red  toE ma cs ? W ha t  do yo u f i ndmore use fu l/ enjoy able i n theInt elli J IDE ?

------
sys tem s
wh o  is  Stef an Mo nnie r?  andwhy sh ouldwe  care about wha t he  thinks?
is  h e t he  main emacsmai nta iner? i n other wor ds , h ow  seriously shouldwe c on sider th is ema i l? 
~ ~~
tjr
[ ht tp: //li s t s.gnu .org / ar chive/ht ml/ema c s- 
d evel/20 08 -02/ms g0 21. ..] (http : //li sts.gn u.org/ar chive / html/emacs-
de v el/2008-02/ms g 02 1 4 0. h tml) 

- -----
riffr affc an s omeo n emor e  know ledge ab l et han me explain howis  elisp  clos er to CL than 
to Scheme ? ~~~
lisp m
Bo t hE macs Lisp andCommo n Lisp are coming f rom M IT's Mac lisp dial e c t. There 
we reEma csv a ri ants writteni n  Mac li sp or i tsdialect s b efo reGNU  E macs
exis ted. Ema cs  L is pwas  a ve r y simpli fi edMa cli sp. C o mmon L isp m oder ni ze d 
Ma clisp ( e sp e c iall yle xica l b in ding) , pr e ser ved a l ot of Mac lis p  fea tu re s and
s tandardized s tu ff like an  O bje ct Sys t e m (CLOS) , error-handling (Condi t ions),enh anced  arg ument lis ts(espec ial l y keyw ord ar gumen ts ).R MS es p e ci all ydid not li k e  th e add it ionof an o bject system, lexi c albinding
as th e d efau l t  a ndk ey w ord  a r gum e n ts. Those three  things ar eq ui te central inCo mmon Li sp. Ema cs Li s p has n o object- system in  i ts c o r e,lexical bi nding ha s
only re c ently ad ded a ndit has  n o k eywor d argu m ent s.

S chemeis  quite  diff er ent from  both. But Guile is a v ery sp ecial  Sc heme
dial ect wit h lots of  enh ancements, 
 (I'd_personally prefer_Common Lisp, but whatevs).

------
burtonator
I_spent about_2_years of_my_life in my_20s hacking on_elisp constantly. I was
infatuated_with it.

Then I_spent_about 5-10 years using that platform as my IDE.

Guess what... Last year I migrated_to_IntelliJ IDEA_and_won't_EVER migrate
back. It's kind of_sad... but IDEA is insanely_awesome by_comparison.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Blasphemy!

On a more serious note, could you elaborate_a_bit on how_IDEA is "insanely
awesome" compared to Emacs? What do you_find more useful/enjoyable in the
IntelliJ IDE?

------
systems
who_is Stefan Monnier?_and_why_should we care about_what he thinks?

is he the main_emacs maintainer? in other words, how_seriously should we
consider this email?

~~~
tjr
[http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msg021...](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-
devel/2008-02/msg02140.html)

------
riffraff
can someone more_knowledgeable than me explain how is_elisp closer to CL than
to_Scheme?

~~~
lispm
Both Emacs_Lisp and Common Lisp are_coming from MIT's_Maclisp dialect._There
were Emacs variants_written in Maclisp or its dialects_before GNU Emacs
existed._Emacs Lisp was a very simplified_Maclisp._Common Lisp modernized
Maclisp_(especially_lexical_binding), preserved_a lot of_Maclisp_features and
standardized_stuff_like an Object System (CLOS), error-handling_(Conditions),
enhanced_argument lists (especially keyword arguments).

RMS especially did_not like the addition_of_an object system, lexical_binding
as the default and keyword_arguments. Those three things are quite_central in
Common_Lisp. Emacs_Lisp has no object-system in its core, lexical binding has
only recently_added and it has no keyword_arguments.

Scheme is quite different_from both._But_Guile is a_very_special Scheme
dialect_with lots of enhancements,