Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpi.edu!rodney
From: rodney@ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs under Common Lisp?
Message-ID: <RODNEY.89Jun2145316@sun.ipl.rpi.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 89 18:53:16 GMT
References: <8856@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: usenet@rpi.edu
Followup-To: gnu.emacs
Organization: RPI Public Access Workstation Lab, Troy NY
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of 2 Jun 89 07:04:39 GMT


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