upvote

points

by brimtown2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby hrmtst938372 days ago|
next
[-]
I tried something similar with a roguelike I was prototyping last year. Ended up being more useful for finding edge cases than actual gameplay feedback - the agent would do things no human would ever try, like walking into walls repeatedly or hoarding useless items. Still caught a bunch of bugs I never would have found otherwise.
reply
upvoteby internet_points2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Consider decoupling the core from Emacs, or packaging in a way that doesn’t require it as heavily.

but then we'd have to write an interface package to run it from emacs

reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
How would it be run without Emacs?

You might point out that there are things like elisp.lisp that purports to run Emacs Lisp in Common Lisp, but I'm not sure that's viable for anything but trivial programs. There's also something for Guile, but I remain unconvinced.

reply
upvoteby notpushkin2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Maybe a Common Lisp core with an Emacs frontend running it in https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/cl.html?
reply
upvoteby mickeyp1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Why not just use the best known emacs lisp core, then? Like say emacs.
reply
upvoteby notpushkin1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
To allow it to run on other lisp dialects as well.

(I’m just trying to defend GP’s point – I’m not a heavy lisp user myself, tbh.)

reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Portability across Lisp dialects is usually not a thing. Even Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp which are arguably pretty close rarely if ever share code.

You could make a frontend for dialect A to run code from dialect B. Those things have been toyed with, but never really took off. E.g. cl in Emacs can not accept real Common Lisp code.

I'm not arguing against the idea, I'm just curious how it would work because I see no realistic way to do it.

reply
upvoteby notpushkin1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Gotcha. Too bad – I was hoping there was at least some (non-trivial) subset you can run on both :(

Any idea why is it not a thing? Is this level of interop not practical for some reason?

reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Lisp dialects have diverged quite a bit, and it would be a lot of work to bridge the differences to a degree approaching 100%. 90% is easy, but only works for small trivial programs.

I say this, having written a "95%" Common Lisp for Emacs (still a toy), and successfully ran an old Maclisp compiler and assembler in Common Lisp.

https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-cl

https://github.com/PDP-6/ITS-138/blob/master/tools/maclisp.l...

reply
upvoteby agumonkey2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
still in their main doc https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Emacs-Li...
reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Having read that, I'm even less convinced it's not more than a toy.
reply
upvoteby convolvatron1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
you could probably use the unexec tooling
reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't see how unexec would help with "decoupling the core from Emacs" since the core is written in Emacs Lisp.
reply
upvoteby convolvatron16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
you could make a standalone executable. I was assuming that people didn't want to start emacs to run it. if its just because...emacs is just morally offensive and one doesn't even want it running under the covers, I dont how to help you.
reply
upvoteby larsbrinkhoff8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Emacs is needed because it provides Emacs Lisp.
reply
upvoteby vkazanov1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
I mean, i dont mind it but having a client/server architecture is a very different story to just 2 elisp modules.

Here, the point was to have everything in emacs completely, and also see if the architectural contraints make sense for elisp (and they do)

And have some fun, of course.

reply