lem-pareto VS one-more-re-nightmare

yes for vim: M-x vi-mode, no for parinfer but there is a paredit plugin: https://github.com/40ants/lem-pareto

Depends on what you mean.

If you just mean writing an implementation of Emacs (or something Emacs-like) in Common Lisp, that's not very hard, and it's been done a few times. See, for example, Lem[1] and Hemlock[2].

Heck, I wrote one for MacOSX in about 2001 or 2002.

If you mean a drop-in replacement for GNU Emacs, that's a lot harder. Besides the UI and the editing infrastructure, you need to write a bug-compatible implementation of GNU's elisp, or you lose the whole GNU Emacs ecosystem. That ecosystem is most of its practical appeal. That's a whole bunch of work.

[1] https://github.com/40ants/lem-pareto/blob/master/lem-pareto-...

https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare

And the pretty hard to find blog post about it:

Depends on your regex engine, and your non-regex solution. My engine (shameless self-plug https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare) rivals hand-written automata, having to load each character more-or-less* only once, and throws in vectorisation for simple search loops too. I would not want to write or maintain the generated code.

one-more-re-nightmare used to let you write Σ, but I then tried to search Greek stuff with it and it went wrong. So now there's...$ for all characters (since that's not used for end-of-line assertions).

One trick is that Common Lisp can generate and compile code at runtime, whereas static languages typically do not have a compiler available at runtime. This lets you make your own lazy person's JIT/staged compiler, which is useful if some part of the problem is not known at compile-time. Such an approach has been used at least for array munging, type munging and regular expression munging.

> One of my favorite examples is the regex library cl-ppcre. Thanks to the nature of Lisp, the recognizer for each regex you create can be compiled to native code on compiler implementations of CL.

That is not true - cl-ppcre generates a chain of closures. Experimental performance is in the same ballpark as typical "bytecode" interpreting regex implementations.

(Disclosure: I wrote another regex library at <https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare>, which does do native code compilation.)

Someone else didn't tell me that before, so it can't be true. But I don't publish papers on toys, nor do I think toy projects are awfully fast. Though the x86-64 backend I wrote was in someone else's repository and thus was several PRs :(

Regular expressions

Also try this https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare

A Common Lisp system has the compiler around at runtime, so if you can figure out how to profitably stage/specialise a computation, then you can roll your own cheap JIT of sorts. This can be useful for array munging and regular expressions at the least. You can do this in C, of course but you would need to use another compiler as a library (e.g. LLVM, TCC, libgccjit) or write your own (e.g. PCRE2's sljit).

Agree to disagree - I don't have the energy to remember operator precedence. One file from the regular expression compiler has most of the rewrite rules I read from the papers, except in S-expression syntax. There were a few bugs due to misreading precedence. Also c.f. Gerald Sussman talking about physics notation being a pain in the butt.