Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!labrea!polya!max
From: max@polya.Stanford.EDU (Max Hailperin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: history of emacs and lisps
Summary: multics emacs in maclisp predates scheme, right?
Message-ID: <5484@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 5 Dec 88 16:39:03 GMT
References: <8812030543.AA12348@theory.LCS.MIT.EDU> <8812031540.AA00290@toucan.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: mxh@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (Max Hailperin)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 17

>> Forgive my stupidity on this answer - but wasn't EMACS originally written in
>> Lisp, like way way back. (i.e. before we were scheme'ing)

>EMACS was first written in TECO.

While it is of course true that EMACS was originally a bunch of MIT
TECO [note that MIT TECO is not the same as DEC TECO] macros (that's
where the "MACS" part of the name comes from, if my memory serves me),
I believe there is some grain of truth in the original posting.

The second implementation of EMACS, very early on, was in Maclisp --
Multics EMACS.  Unless I've got my history muddled, Multics EMACS does
predate Scheme.  Therefore, there is indeed a historical grounding for
the use of Maclisp-family Lisps in writing EMACSes.

Of course, that's far from the whole story: there's also issues like
RMS's own background and tastes.