Why not just use the best known emacs lisp core, then? Like say emacs.
replyTo allow it to run on other lisp dialects as well.
reply(I’m just trying to defend GP’s point – I’m not a heavy lisp user myself, tbh.)
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.
replyYou 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.
Gotcha. Too bad – I was hoping there was at least some (non-trivial) subset you can run on both :(
replyAny idea why is it not a thing? Is this level of interop not practical for some reason?
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.
replyI 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...