Lem
Emacs-like text editor written in and extensible with Common Lisp.
HN commenters like Lem as an Emacs-style editor written in and extensible with Common Lisp123, which draws on a richer ecosystem than Elisp45, and one user reports it is more performant than GNU Emacs.6 The most common caveat is that it has fewer features, plugins and mature UX than GNU Emacs78, and one commenter found it never worked well for them.9
Why people recommend it
Common Lisp core · 3
Commenters value that Lem is built on and extensible in Common Lisp, with a richer ecosystem than Elisp.
“It's an "emacs" but not a clone of GNU Emacs. It's written in Common Lisp, extensible in Common Lisp and it's way more performant than GNU Emacs.”
“Something like Lem[1][2] could go even further because of the richer CommonLisp ecosystem compared to Elisp one.”
Show 1 more
“I have a hope for the Common Lisp based Lem.”
Emacs replacement · 3
Some users say they miss little from Emacs and now use Lem more than GNU Emacs.
“There's very little I miss when I use lem, TBH.”
“lately I use lem more than I do GNU emacs”
Show 1 more
“But, long term Lem is probably the move.”
Org/Magit alternatives · 1
Lem already has a legit (Magit-like) clone and org-mode-alikes.
“There's very little I miss when I use lem, TBH.”
Performance · 1
One user says it is much more performant than GNU Emacs.
“It's an "emacs" but not a clone of GNU Emacs. It's written in Common Lisp, extensible in Common Lisp and it's way more performant than GNU Emacs.”
Caveats and dissent
Fewer features · 2
It has fewer features and plugins than GNU Emacs.
“It's an "emacs" but not a clone of GNU Emacs. It's written in Common Lisp, extensible in Common Lisp and it's way more performant than GNU Emacs.”
“Perhaps, the time to seriously consider Lem is almost (?), already (?) here.”
Less mature UX · 1
Lem is still building the live-programming UX that Emacs and Elisp have refined over decades.
“Lem, in comparison, is building up all the UX associated with a "live programming environment"”
Reliability · 1
One commenter called it messy and said it never worked well for them.
“messy things like Lem that never really worked very well for me”
Switching cost · 1
Rebuilding an existing Emacs setup is a barrier to trying it.
“But, long term Lem is probably the move.”
Often compared with
Who recommends it in their own words
Threads where it came up
- Emacs Is a Lispboard 3 mentions
- Emacs 31 Is Around the Corner: The Changes I'm Daily Driving 2 mentions
- Mine, an IDE for Coalton and Common Lisp 2 mentions
- Emacs Turns 50 1 mention
- NEO Emacs – GPU-Accelerated Emacs Powered by Rust 1 mention
- How I am deeply integrating Emacs 1 mention
Also written as lem. Data: lem.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 10
“Lem, in comparison, is building up all the UX associated with a "live programming environment"”
“But, long term Lem is probably the move.”
“Perhaps, the time to seriously consider Lem is almost (?), already (?) here.”
“There's very little I miss when I use lem, TBH.”
“Something like Lem[1][2] could go even further because of the richer CommonLisp ecosystem compared to Elisp one.”
“It's an "emacs" but not a clone of GNU Emacs. It's written in Common Lisp, extensible in Common Lisp and it's way more performant than GNU Emacs.”
“lately I use lem more than I do GNU emacs”
“I use Neovide and Lem interchangeably.”
“messy things like Lem that never really worked very well for me”
“I have a hope for the Common Lisp based Lem.”