> Yes, and it's not written in common lisp, or lisp at all for that matter. It's written in C with an embedded lisp (elisp).
Isn't it the case that something like 70%+ of all Emacs' source code is actually elisp?
The fact that C code embeds a Lisp doesn't make the code then written in elisp C code right? Otherwise by that logic Java code is actually bytecode or something.
I want to have some kind of takeaway, but sometimes you have to just point at the brightest light in the room or at least move at all in order to move the ball forward.
There's $100 right now sitting in an account that someone pre-paid. I have seen their email and know it's nobody I've known. The purpose of those funds is to develop the rest of our features. This person wants our platform to exist in its fully intended glory. That is what we are selling.
$25 per week are enrolled, but without matching funds of the correct shapes, I am only guaranteed $1 per week. The other $24 are sitting there waiting for others.
The matching is two-dimensional. Watch the animation. Study it. It tells you everything. You never see the levels of large donors exceeding those below. You never see a level even exist until there are sufficient small donors. Features like this coordinates cooperation across wildly different budgets. Elastic Fund Matching 1.1.0 will do it better. We won't stop. We like money.
The thresholds expand by double each time the matching is triggered. This is basically a fancy but fundamentally better Kickstarter funding progress bar. It matches funds two-dimensionally. It expands to capture more demand. It is our prototype feature.
You need to learn how to explain your ideas to other humans in more accessible language, because this isn't it. Your website tells me nothing and neither does your explanation.
You assume too much context from people. If you know the problem space I'm sure your explanation is technically correct. But random people do not have that preknowledge.
Edit: If you are affiliated with the Positron that made the Elisp Repo Kit, then keep making more Elisp packages. I made a package for myself a while back, and erk was the easiest solution. Keep up the good work.
CL is a real language with an ecosystem. It is blazing fast and capable compared to Elisp. The debugging is amazing. I almost used it to build PrizeForge. The tooling in Elisp is not designed for serious people or doing serious things.
To understand why, we have to look at who has been gating its development. Long ago, the FSF began rationalizing the failures of their strategies and technology choices rather than seriously re-analyzing how reality had unfolded. If the Elisp runtime was slow, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that you weren't prioritizing your "freedom".
Guile Emacs exists. The reason that its own developers and other hands who have touched it don't want to try harder is because they know for a fact that getting anything merged into Emacs core means an utterly exhausting, soul-crushing slog where people who have made a profession of not changing their minds will demand to be convinced to change their minds.
Go hop over to the Lem Discord. They love doing things. They just want to program. It's such a massive breath of fresh air to be able to talk about technology and doing well instead of having this hand-wringing performative "freedom" signaling. It's like when church kids talk about doing something normal and have to make a little show of their loyalty to the cause before they can exercise their free will and judgement.
I want lab-grown meat, Year of the Linux Desktop, and synthetic biochemistry to get the microplastics out of my body. The FSF doesn't care. They don't care. They decided that success is bad and that dying on a hill is good. They want to force everyone to be backwards compatible with decisions they made thirty years ago as if it has any hope of revitalizing an ecosystem that they deny even exists.
I feel utterly and completely betrayed by the FSF and want as far away from them as possible. Technically, I find the prospects of Lem to be superior. I find political landscape not in favor of Guile Emacs and I fear that if Emacs users manage to obtain Guile, they will have also bought into another decade under the stifling leadership inside the dark recesses of a mailing list they don't know how badly they disagree with.
> Guile Emacs exists. The reason that its own developers and other hands who have touched it don't want to try harder is because they know for a fact that getting anything merged into Emacs core means an utterly exhausting, soul-crushing slog where people who have made a profession of not changing their minds will demand to be convinced to change their minds.
No, it's cause fitting a Scheme runtime around Emacs Lisp proved more technically difficult than they imagined, and the performance benefits of the Guile runtime were shadowed by the actually successful effort of integrating a native compiler for Elisp.
> I want lab-grown meat, Year of the Linux Desktop, and synthetic biochemistry to get the microplastics out of my body. The FSF doesn't care. They don't care.
Why would they? What does lab-grown meat have to do with software?
> They want to force everyone to be backwards compatible with decisions they made thirty years ago as if it has any hope of revitalizing an ecosystem that they deny even exists.
Personally I like having my programs work instead of playing a goose chase with a moving target. Common Lisp is also a thirty year old stable language, but I don't see you complaining.
> I feel utterly and completely betrayed by the FSF and want as far away from them as possible.
Good to know where the tokens fall. I sure as hell won't be giving you any of my money (not like I was going to before).
> What does lab-grown meat have to do with software
Part of my values for open technology, open things in general, is how it accelerates innovation. Software is not always and end. It is a means. When "free" software demands we die on a hill for a cold shower in the dark, as they did during the Web 2.0 era, they are chasing some abstract good while creating real harm.
I care about a lot of different kinds of freedom, like freedom of speech and information, not just software. What all kinds of freedom have in common is that people who only advocate them when it's a convenient means to an end do not believe in freedom, and more often than not are enemies of freedom who seek to undermine it.
Political extremists advocate for free speech in order to further their agenda, but when given power happily turn back it against their enemies. Corporations advocate for "open source" and once they have enough free labor and market capture will lock it up to gain control. Publishing companies ransom publicly funded universities for access to their own research. The pharmaceutical industry might as well be the most evil and corrupt in the world, and by god you, nor anyone else is ever going to benefit from any medical innovation, nevertheless get microplastics out of your body until it can get sold back to you, assuming you can even afford it.
If you only care about supporting things as means to your own ends, then that's your deal, but don't act like you're operating on some moral high ground. To me you're just another tool.
Telling consumers that they aren't allowed to pay for open source is like telling them only programmers are drive its creation it. All you see is mOnEy. Do you think we want to go back to a barter economy?
I have had enough of these conversations. Most of the time those opposed to money being used to produce open source have become so fixated on something some completely unrelated company did and then generalize it to everyone.
I will make you regret this attitude someday. I will break the back of this ideology that has done so much harm to open source by telling consumers they should just suck it up and stop liking Web 2.0 apps while offering them nothing, no means, no sustainable options.
Get fucked. The only thing the racket you're running is for is to skim money off of donations. If you wanna even be successful at that, try learning some English first.
I agree in general, but this project HAS releases; At least, it had until a certain date. So if you jump to the releases page, it gives the impression that the project is now dead. If they have abandoned that model, they should at least write it somewhere.
Related. Others?
Mezzano on Librebooted ThinkPads - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28880888 - Oct 2021 (46 comments)
Mezzano: Operating system written in Common Lisp - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26051255 - Feb 2021 (68 comments)
Mezzano (LispOS) Release Demo 5 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23950558 - July 2020 (2 comments)
Mezzano – An operating system written in Common Lisp - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20210227 - June 2019 (136 comments)
Common Lisp OS Mezzano – Demo 4 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17633626 - July 2018 (1 comment)
Mezzano – Common Lisp OS: Demo 3 released - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14072121 - April 2017 (22 comments)
Mezzano – An operating system written in Common Lisp - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12358177 - Aug 2016 (63 comments)
Mezzano, an operating system written in Common Lisp - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8955140 - Jan 2015 (15 comments)
Mezzanine: A Common Lisp-based 64-bit OS for VirtualBox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8943709 - Jan 2015 (63 comments)
Don't we already have Emacs :p
All in all, cool!
Yes, and it's not written in common lisp, or lisp at all for that matter. It's written in C with an embedded lisp (elisp).
Actually, given all this I'm not sure of your point anymore.
> Yes, and it's not written in common lisp, or lisp at all for that matter. It's written in C with an embedded lisp (elisp).
Isn't it the case that something like 70%+ of all Emacs' source code is actually elisp?
The fact that C code embeds a Lisp doesn't make the code then written in elisp C code right? Otherwise by that logic Java code is actually bytecode or something.
We have Lem
I am creating https://prizeforge.com so that I can escape from Emacs to Lem (among billions of other reasons)
> I am creating https://prizeforge.com
looks like a scam. why don't you describe your 'vision' in a way normal people can read instead of with pages of machine-generated corpo-schlock
the more i look at your site the more insane it gets. reminds me of that leaked pepsi logo powerpoint
Normal people don't even know what open source is. Can you be more specific?
I read the page three times, I have no ideas what it's about :(. Something about funding and opensource, but no clue how or why
I want to have some kind of takeaway, but sometimes you have to just point at the brightest light in the room or at least move at all in order to move the ball forward.
There's $100 right now sitting in an account that someone pre-paid. I have seen their email and know it's nobody I've known. The purpose of those funds is to develop the rest of our features. This person wants our platform to exist in its fully intended glory. That is what we are selling.
$25 per week are enrolled, but without matching funds of the correct shapes, I am only guaranteed $1 per week. The other $24 are sitting there waiting for others.
The matching is two-dimensional. Watch the animation. Study it. It tells you everything. You never see the levels of large donors exceeding those below. You never see a level even exist until there are sufficient small donors. Features like this coordinates cooperation across wildly different budgets. Elastic Fund Matching 1.1.0 will do it better. We won't stop. We like money.
The thresholds expand by double each time the matching is triggered. This is basically a fancy but fundamentally better Kickstarter funding progress bar. It matches funds two-dimensionally. It expands to capture more demand. It is our prototype feature.
You need to learn how to explain your ideas to other humans in more accessible language, because this isn't it. Your website tells me nothing and neither does your explanation.
You need to ask questions. I can't do anything with people who just give up and start demanding things to make sense.
You assume too much context from people. If you know the problem space I'm sure your explanation is technically correct. But random people do not have that preknowledge.
Thanks.
Why do you think you need to "escape" from Emacs?
Edit: If you are affiliated with the Positron that made the Elisp Repo Kit, then keep making more Elisp packages. I made a package for myself a while back, and erk was the easiest solution. Keep up the good work.
CL is a real language with an ecosystem. It is blazing fast and capable compared to Elisp. The debugging is amazing. I almost used it to build PrizeForge. The tooling in Elisp is not designed for serious people or doing serious things.
To understand why, we have to look at who has been gating its development. Long ago, the FSF began rationalizing the failures of their strategies and technology choices rather than seriously re-analyzing how reality had unfolded. If the Elisp runtime was slow, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that you weren't prioritizing your "freedom".
Guile Emacs exists. The reason that its own developers and other hands who have touched it don't want to try harder is because they know for a fact that getting anything merged into Emacs core means an utterly exhausting, soul-crushing slog where people who have made a profession of not changing their minds will demand to be convinced to change their minds.
Go hop over to the Lem Discord. They love doing things. They just want to program. It's such a massive breath of fresh air to be able to talk about technology and doing well instead of having this hand-wringing performative "freedom" signaling. It's like when church kids talk about doing something normal and have to make a little show of their loyalty to the cause before they can exercise their free will and judgement.
I want lab-grown meat, Year of the Linux Desktop, and synthetic biochemistry to get the microplastics out of my body. The FSF doesn't care. They don't care. They decided that success is bad and that dying on a hill is good. They want to force everyone to be backwards compatible with decisions they made thirty years ago as if it has any hope of revitalizing an ecosystem that they deny even exists.
I feel utterly and completely betrayed by the FSF and want as far away from them as possible. Technically, I find the prospects of Lem to be superior. I find political landscape not in favor of Guile Emacs and I fear that if Emacs users manage to obtain Guile, they will have also bought into another decade under the stifling leadership inside the dark recesses of a mailing list they don't know how badly they disagree with.
> Guile Emacs exists. The reason that its own developers and other hands who have touched it don't want to try harder is because they know for a fact that getting anything merged into Emacs core means an utterly exhausting, soul-crushing slog where people who have made a profession of not changing their minds will demand to be convinced to change their minds.
No, it's cause fitting a Scheme runtime around Emacs Lisp proved more technically difficult than they imagined, and the performance benefits of the Guile runtime were shadowed by the actually successful effort of integrating a native compiler for Elisp.
> I want lab-grown meat, Year of the Linux Desktop, and synthetic biochemistry to get the microplastics out of my body. The FSF doesn't care. They don't care.
Why would they? What does lab-grown meat have to do with software?
> They want to force everyone to be backwards compatible with decisions they made thirty years ago as if it has any hope of revitalizing an ecosystem that they deny even exists.
Personally I like having my programs work instead of playing a goose chase with a moving target. Common Lisp is also a thirty year old stable language, but I don't see you complaining.
> I feel utterly and completely betrayed by the FSF and want as far away from them as possible.
Good to know where the tokens fall. I sure as hell won't be giving you any of my money (not like I was going to before).
You're nuts.
> What does lab-grown meat have to do with software
Part of my values for open technology, open things in general, is how it accelerates innovation. Software is not always and end. It is a means. When "free" software demands we die on a hill for a cold shower in the dark, as they did during the Web 2.0 era, they are chasing some abstract good while creating real harm.
I care about a lot of different kinds of freedom, like freedom of speech and information, not just software. What all kinds of freedom have in common is that people who only advocate them when it's a convenient means to an end do not believe in freedom, and more often than not are enemies of freedom who seek to undermine it.
Political extremists advocate for free speech in order to further their agenda, but when given power happily turn back it against their enemies. Corporations advocate for "open source" and once they have enough free labor and market capture will lock it up to gain control. Publishing companies ransom publicly funded universities for access to their own research. The pharmaceutical industry might as well be the most evil and corrupt in the world, and by god you, nor anyone else is ever going to benefit from any medical innovation, nevertheless get microplastics out of your body until it can get sold back to you, assuming you can even afford it.
If you only care about supporting things as means to your own ends, then that's your deal, but don't act like you're operating on some moral high ground. To me you're just another tool.
I PR'd a sqlx today. What did you do?
Look at this giant tirade you sent at me.
Telling consumers that they aren't allowed to pay for open source is like telling them only programmers are drive its creation it. All you see is mOnEy. Do you think we want to go back to a barter economy?
I have had enough of these conversations. Most of the time those opposed to money being used to produce open source have become so fixated on something some completely unrelated company did and then generalize it to everyone.
I will make you regret this attitude someday. I will break the back of this ideology that has done so much harm to open source by telling consumers they should just suck it up and stop liking Web 2.0 apps while offering them nothing, no means, no sustainable options.
Get fucked. The only thing the racket you're running is for is to skim money off of donations. If you wanna even be successful at that, try learning some English first.
Lol. Never change, internet.
Latest release is from five years ago, unfortunately. The project seems mostly abandoned.
The git log says differently.
Not everything needs a "release" to be alive.
I agree in general, but this project HAS releases; At least, it had until a certain date. So if you jump to the releases page, it gives the impression that the project is now dead. If they have abandoned that model, they should at least write it somewhere.
why?