From: Steven L. Collins
Subject: Hemlock vs Emacs/ilisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <bevteh$iqa$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Hi all,
   Do most CMUCL users use Emacs with ILISP or are they still using Hemlock.
I kind of get the impression that Emacs with ILISP is the popular choice.
I've been using SBCL with Emacs/ILISP on Debian and find it works fine for
me.   But, I see Hemlock in a lot of CMUCL archive messages.  Does Hemlock
come closer to the Lisp Machine type of environment then Emacs/ILISP ?  I'm
going to be installing CMUCL on a Solaris OS next week and was wondering if
it would be worth looking at.  I know try it and see if you like it, but
feedback form C.L.L. is always welcome and may save a little time.

 Have a good day and thanks for any feedback,
Steven
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: Hemlock vs Emacs/ilisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcv65m4b8nx.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
"Steven L. Collins" <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>    Do most CMUCL users use Emacs with ILISP or are they still using Hemlock.
> I kind of get the impression that Emacs with ILISP is the popular choice.
> I've been using SBCL with Emacs/ILISP on Debian and find it works fine for
> me.   But, I see Hemlock in a lot of CMUCL archive messages.  Does Hemlock
> come closer to the Lisp Machine type of environment then Emacs/ILISP ?  I'm
> going to be installing CMUCL on a Solaris OS next week and was wondering if
> it would be worth looking at.  I know try it and see if you like it, but
> feedback form C.L.L. is always welcome and may save a little time.

Most use ILISP, and because of this, Hemlock is falling behind the
feature creep.  However, it is much better integrated, doesn't give
you the weird ILISP hangy problems and sometimes corruptions -- and it
works remotely.  Oh, and it has a nice manual.  I highly recommend
trying it.

Recently back to using Hemlock again myself,
Thomas

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: Ingvar Mattsson
Subject: Re: Hemlock vs Emacs/ilisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <877k6km42y.fsf@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net>
"Steven L. Collins" <·······@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>    Do most CMUCL users use Emacs with ILISP or are they still using Hemlock.
> I kind of get the impression that Emacs with ILISP is the popular choice.
> I've been using SBCL with Emacs/ILISP on Debian and find it works fine for
> me.   But, I see Hemlock in a lot of CMUCL archive messages.  Does Hemlock
> come closer to the Lisp Machine type of environment then Emacs/ILISP ?  I'm
> going to be installing CMUCL on a Solaris OS next week and was wondering if
> it would be worth looking at.  I know try it and see if you like it, but
> feedback form C.L.L. is always welcome and may save a little time.

I mostly use the normal "inferior-lisp" mode, to be honest. Mostly
because I spend quite a lot of time in emacs and taht's what I've been
using for lisp interaction since at least 1993 (probably longer, to be
honest, but at least since then) and so far hasn't seen a reason to
shift.

I am, however, slowly building up to an ugly wart on the side of
Hemlock to let most of my neat legacy stuff live in Hemlock instead.

//Ingvar
-- 
When the SysAdmin answers the phone politely, say "sorry", hang up and
run awaaaaay!
	Informal advice to users at Karolinska Institutet, 1993-1994
comp.lang.lisp / 2003 / jul