|Extension Languages email@example.com (1992-12-14)|
|Re: Extension Languages xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1992-12-14)|
|Re: Extension Languages firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-12-14)|
|Re: Extension Languages email@example.com (Dave Gillespie) (1992-12-15)|
|Re: Extension Languages firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-12-16)|
|Re: Extension Languages email@example.com (1992-12-17)|
|Re: Extension Languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Ludemann) (1992-12-17)|
|Re: Extension Languages email@example.com (1992-12-18)|
|Re: Extension Languages firstname.lastname@example.org (Dave Gillespie) (1992-12-19)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dale R. Worley)|
|Organization:||MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA|
|Date:||Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:47:28 GMT|
Dave Gillespie <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
I think Emacs uses Lisp as its base language because Lisp is so well
adapted to running interpretively and in a constantly changing
Historically, the development of Emacs' extension language is more like
The first Emacs was written as a set of extensions to the MIT AI Lab's
Teco, so all extensions were written in Teco.
When it came time to port it to Multics and Tops-20, Emacs was rewritten
using Lisp as the base language, because reimplementing Teco would be too
gross, and Lisp was the only other high-level language at the AI Lab.
No doubt this is over-simplified, but I suspect that historical accident
and the prejudices of AI people had a lot to do with it.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.