So some people swear by lucid emacs, (now xemacs), over the latest gnu
version. Why? What are the advantages either way? What specifically
regarding lisp development?
Has anyone gotten allegro CL well integrated with gnu emacs?
Thanks,
Don
In article <····················@alumni.ndc.com> ······@ndc.com (D. Erway) writes:
Has anyone gotten allegro CL well integrated with gnu emacs?
The UNIX versions of Allegro CL all come with a complete interface to
various versions of GNU Emacs. There is also documentation on the
interface in the User Guide, if you already own the product.
Kevin Layer ·····@Franz.COM http://www.franz.com/
Franz Inc., 1995 University Avenue, Suite 275, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
Phone: (510) 548-3600 FAX: (510) 548-8253
>>>>> ">" == D Erway <······@ndc.com> writes:
>> So some people swear by lucid emacs, (now xemacs), over the latest gnu
>> version. Why? What are the advantages either way? What specifically
>> regarding lisp development?
It sort of depends, I guess.
Xemacs still has some benefits in the X game. The one thing I know of
is the ability to inline graphics into buffers.
I prefer GNU emacs myself. Instaling ILISP (which is *really* neat,
though it might not beat Franz' homegrown Allegro interface) is no
hazzle and you might need to do so anyway since new version of ILISP
may come out before Xemacs is updated. To me it matters mostrly which
has the largest user-base (and hence supply of nifty hacks) and it is
my uninformed subjective impression that GNU emacs has the lead here.
I would think that for non-specialized applications (i.e. where you do
not need som *specific* feature), the choice should be of what is the
easier. I.e. if your system already has one of the two, there is
little reason to battle for the installation of the other. Look also
to what your companions use. Using the same tools always make things
easier.
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Computer Science Department, University of Aarhus
Office: R0.32 | Ny Munkegade, Building 540, DK-8000 Aarhus C
Phone: +45 8942 3217 | ·······@daimi.aau.dk -- www.daimi.aau.dk/~lynbech
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
>>>>> "kpc" == k p c <···@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> writes:
kpc> o Xemacs' version of elisp appears to be moving towards Common
kpc> Lisp faster than the RMS version.
I do not think that GNU emacs is working very hard towards CL. In
fact, it is my impression that it will rather work towards scheme. If
I understand things correctly, GNU emacs will eventually build on
top on the GUILE system, which is supposed to support both elisp and
scheme.
kpc> o Several package developers appear to definitely favor
kpc> Xemacs. Also, Xemacs seems to bundle more packages.
Not having used Xemacs for a long time, I cannot say how bad this
is. I would guess that many major packages which are in active
development tries hard to work on both. But it is certainly the case
that Xemacs versions tend to pack more functionality. As one example,
I think that GNUS 5 has builtin X-Faces support and W3 allows inline
graphics on Xemacs (again, if I have understood it correctly).
kpc> o There is a possibly widening rift between RMS Emacs and
kpc> Xemacs that makes source and byte-compiler elisp
kpc> compatibility difficult. There are few compatibility
kpc> primitives such as compile-file-pathname.
On the other hand, there are compability packages, at least on the GNU
side. Font-lock came over from Xemacs and there is also an Xemacs
menubar interface. This is only to say that if compability matters to
the community, it has a fair chance of happening.
PS
I am not trying to start a religious war over which emacs is better. I
think both versions has merits and deserve a place in our hearts,
though the projects probably are going in somewhat different directions.
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Computer Science Department, University of Aarhus
Office: R0.32 | Ny Munkegade, Building 540, DK-8000 Aarhus C
Phone: +45 8942 3217 | ·······@daimi.aau.dk -- www.daimi.aau.dk/~lynbech
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Quoth ·······@cobalt.daimi.aau.dk (Christian Lynbech):
> I do not think that GNU emacs is working very hard towards CL. In
> fact, it is my impression that it will rather work towards scheme. If
Could be. I do not know the current status of the Guile effort or
Xemacs' role in it. I commented on CL rather than Scheme because I
and the readers in comp.lang.lisp are more interested in the former.
I stand by the comment that Xemacs appears to be moving more quickly
toward CL than RMS Emacs. That might change and it might not be worth
much if neither one is moving much, but every little bit helps CL
people. CL keywords, for example, appear in Xemacs but not in RMS
emacs except in cl.el. Perhaps it is only a temporary bubble in the
ferment of lisp changes in both versions.
Scheme and CL cross-fertilize somewhat. Moving toward either
standard, either by analogy (doing things the way <insert standard>
would do them) or homology (implementing an <insert standard>
feature), would be an improvement IMHO.
> I am not trying to start a religious war over which emacs is better. I
Go for it, d00d! Just remember to disclaim every paragraph with "It
is a well-known fact that..." and omit smileys. You'll fit right in.
((:-). I'm not sure a comment a long time ago about Lucid dreaming
was understood without the smiley, so here is one.)
I have no preference for one version or the other right now because
they are both crashing. Thus ends this part of the thread for me.
If you post a followup to this article, please also send a courtesy
verbatim copy by email to help work around potentially unreliable
feeds.
---
···@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov. AI, multidisciplinary neuroethology, info filtering.
Prescriptions are a monopoly on granting permission to buy. Legalize medicine!