eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (06/02/89)
Here's a matter that I've wondered about. Why not get rid of emacslisp altogether and replace it with a full common lisp? I use emacs for Lisp program development, and I think it's very good: but I really don't see why there should be two separate lisp processes running when there is an obvious possibility for a fully integrated enviroment, which much better communication between the editor and the lisp process. Comments?
rodney@ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (06/03/89)
on 2 Jun 89 07:04:39 GMT, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) said: Eliot> Path: rpi!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!eliot Eliot> Here's a matter that I've wondered about. Why not get rid of Eliot> emacslisp altogether and replace it with a full common lisp? I Eliot> use emacs for Lisp program development, and I think it's very Eliot> good: but I really don't see why there should be two separate Eliot> lisp processes running when there is an obvious possibility for Eliot> a fully integrated enviroment, which much better communication Eliot> between the editor and the lisp process. Eliot> Comments? yes, this is almost exactly what a lisp machine does. I use TI Explorers A LOT and have found that having the editor and lisp around using the same language makes extensions even easier. A lispm's environment is very nice since everything remains in memory until you free it up for garbage collection. Program development is FAST. Rodney