Jamie in Cuckooland@<a href="https://fosstodon.org/@demiguru" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Zach 🇮🇱 🇺🇸</a> <br><br>To continue from where I left off, the pure Unix conception didn't envisage dynamic languages and scriptability and explicitly eshewed large programs. The utility of (some) dynamism was realised early, but corrected in hamstrung sort of ways — especially from a Lisp perspective, but anyone can see the limitations of shell scripting languages. <br><br>And the 'small programs' in practice has not played out either. X isn't small, vim isn't small (not by trad Unix standards - it's similar order of magnitude to emacs in fact), webbrowser aren't small... <br><br>The other side of the equation is that the Lisp (esp. in the form of Lisp Machines)/Smalltalk world supposed that you would live entirely within the environment and everything would be written in the one language. The notion of interoperating with anything outside this was alien and resisted. It was some years, I believe, before a C compiler became available for Lisp Machines. <br><br>Emacs transcends all of this. It participates in the Unix world just fine. If you want to load, edit something, and exit, you can do that (if it's running in the background as a server, this is plenty fast, too, as you're just executing emacsclient). If you want to use it as a filter on the command line, it can do that too, as has been demonstrated. <br><br>And the unix world is also available from within emacs. You can filter or send any block of text through external commands, it has wrappers for classic unix tools like grep, also modes for interacting with shells, terminal emulators, and its own shell from which you can run both elisp functions and unix commands together. <br><br>(And, of course, it's great at handling Unix's common data format: text.)<br><br>Moreover, org-mode has a great multilingual environment where you run source code in numerous languages and even pass data between them with ease. <br><br><br>This is all completely the opposite of the Lisp Machine/Smalltalk notion of an isolated world. It's more in line with the Unix shell, which doesn't care what your programs are written, except better. <br><br>So I think we can say it <em>transcends</em> the two purisms. It does this by rejecting the 'small specialized program' dictum (which I don't think is important and I'd argue has been effectively rejected by all but the most purist Unix-heads), and centering itself in place of a unix shell (without demanding this) but keeping to the spirit of all the other ideas. And on the other hand, also rejecting Lisp Machine solipsism. <br><br>(I haven't really thought of this in quite this way before so thanks for the discussion, in particular @<a href="https://piaille.fr/@Zenie" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Zenie</a> who pushed the idea that emacs is actually better at what's important about unix than unix is, and @<a href="https://social.linux.pizza/@restorante" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">restorante</a> and @<a href="https://ieji.de/@eruwero" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">eruwero</a>'s demonstration of emacs as a unix command line tool) <br><br>#<a class="" href="https://zotum.net/search?tag=emacs" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">emacs</a> #<a class="" href="https://zotum.net/search?tag=lisp" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">lisp</a> #<a class="" href="https://zotum.net/search?tag=unix" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">unix</a>