slime VS GNU Emacs

Try https://github.com/slime/slime/commit/e6a71c725c8e13d7d4c40e6a6fa7b696575a8d01

With emacs your two choices are either SLIME or SLY. Slime is a good place to start - it's rock solid. Once you get moving you can make a judgement call on whether or not SLY has features you'd like over what SLIME has available.

To provide a bit more context, most of SLIME is just Common Lisp code (https://github.com/slime/slime), with a bunch of Emacs Lisp code alongside to support interfacing with Emacs. But you don't need that Emacs Lisp code to take advantage of almost all of the functionality SLIME provides. For instance, if you want to know who-calls a function, there's some command in emacs to do it, but all that command is doing is just a bit of elisp code which sends a message to Swank (a server running inside Common Lisp) and Swank invokes some native CL code to figure that out and return the results, then finally a bit of elisp code presents the results in some way. Vim can do the same thing just fine with vimscript/python (what the Slimv plugin uses) or otherwise, the bulk of the work in figuring out the list of callers of some function is done by the CL code (and CL implementation itself).

SLIME or SLY for Common Lisp (if you want to work with it), Geiser for various Schemes

That's rather new, https://github.com/slime/slime/commit/789584a7acb15747678fa62a8fcfc8d1187be867 is probably about that.

With that headline on HN, I was expecting this: https://common-lisp.net/project/slime/

SLIME or Sly for Common Lisp, Geiser for most Scheme implementations, or racket-mode for Racket?

For example, some people that are Common Lisp programmers, but don't use GNU Emacs, may decide to use GNU Emacs because of the slime-mode workflow.

gnu.org - contains everything you need to research his philosophy.

stallman.org - personal website, contains a lot of opinion, but I absolutely respect this man in all what he says.

emacs.org (redirects to https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) - his non-philosophical work, one of two mainstream console text editors.

Forever, there was a file included in stock Emacs, `spook.el`, which could be hooked up to automatically add random strings of "interesting" keywords to each of your email or Usenet messages (in signatures, or in headers like `X-Spook`).

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ma...

Looks like copyright date of 1988:

https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/blob/master/lisp/play/...

https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/blob/master/etc/spook....

Try `M-x spook RET` in an Emacs buffer.

If you want to spare a couple of detours, you probably could start with Emacs Org-mode according to Greenspun's eleventh rule: "Any sufficiently complicated PIM or note-taking program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Org mode."

Emacs: winget install GNU.Emacs

The whole cl-lib thing is a total disaster:

https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/blob/master/lisp/emacs...

They added cl- as a prefix to each Common Lisp symbol.

FIRST is now called cl-first, CAAAR is now cl-caaar .

I would really prefer if GNU Emacs removes all Common Lisp functionality, instead of creating this really wacky stuff, with discussions about this topic every year.

Never too late to try! Take your time. Emacs will outlive us all. https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

GNU Emacs is a versatile, open-source text editor that offers extensibility and customization—a sort of self-documenting real-time display editor. Our thanks for the suggestion go to CartanAnnullator.

Emacs

Their DEFUN and DEFVAR macros for example let us define a function or a variable that will be available as a Lisp function, and can be used as an ordinary C function from the C code. Emacs is written in pure C99 language and works with both GCC and Clang I believe. We can just define a C function via macro, and it is auto exported and made available to Lisp. For example my first patch to Emacs was for this function (we added "count" argument to make it possible to skip enumerating files in a directory for the case when user code is just interesting if a directory is empty or not):