Skip to content

Emacs needs Interfaces: ELisp & the Emacs Ecosystem

Posted on:July 19, 2020
21 minute read

I’ve been an Emacs user for the better part of four years. A simple requirement is making me rethink that, after seeing how original design decisions hold up, 30+ years later.

One Static Blog later, posts are mostly written in Org mode, but written in VSCode.

This past Memorial Day weekend, I decided to play around with static site generation for a new blogging platform.

I’ve used a self-hosted Wordpress site for a while now, but I don’t use it enough to justify the resources. Plus, I found its new “blocks” WYSIWYG editor wasn’t the friendliest to links or code.

When dealing with links and code in prose, what better choice than a markup language? I’d love to use some form of markup, and avoid spending tons of time styling.

Those requirements lead me to Jekyll.

Jekyll and Org?

Org is an excellent package in the Emacs ecosystem. I love the Emacs-native code snippet styling, simple LaTeX, and ease of exporting to other formats. org-latex-export-to-pdf was incredibly useful in college: I know enough about LaTeX to write math, but when organizing responses on an assignment, I’d prefer to let Org handle it.

I set out with a simple goal:

This should not be a challenging problem: Org has been around for a while, Jekyll has been around for a while. Surely a plugin exists to tackle this exact task. Or at worst, go from Org->Markdown (even Org->HTML), and let Jekyll take it from there.

A breeze through Jekyll

If you’ve heard of Jekyll before, here’s a brief intro, relative to what I’ll be touching.

Jekyll generates a cohesive, static site from various markup templates. I’m using it for a blog, but it offers collections, several templating/layout options, and more.

For my use case, markup goes in _posts, and is added to a list of posts on the home page. Example:

// _posts/
title:  "Welcome to Jekyll!"
date:   2020-05-24 17:33:51 -0400
  - category1
  - category2
  - tag1
  - tag2

Hello world!

On, this will generate with the requested tags + content.

Current Org+Jekyll support

In traditional Emacs fashion, you have your pick of solutions. Worg lists a majority of popular ones. Many looked out of date or unmaintained, but some looked promising.

Using that list + some searching, I had a handful of projects to try out.

All of them fell short for one reason or another, which was surprising. I’d always been able to find (or tape together) a solution to fit my needs. It encouraged me to explore each potential solution a bit deeper.

What about Org or Jekyll was special here? Other integrations (Git, GCC, etc.) were excellent, why not Org and Jekyll?


jekyll-org is a Jekyll plugin, allowing Jekyll to treat .org files as any other markup file, and auto-generate pages from it.

This means Jekyll handles everything: no exporting through Emacs necessary. Sounds great! Less I need to remember before publishing.

I tried adding a code snippet. Org indicates a code block using the following format.

#+BEGIN_SRC python
import pprint
pprint.pprint("Hello world!")

In my editor, syntax highlighting is all honky dory. Syntax highlighting is borderline essential for a tech blog: I post various code snippets so folks can follow along, so it’s a must-for the rendered output.

For one blog entry, this snippet gave me some hassle (ARM assembly):

// A ==> B
MOV R3, #0x2 // R3 Button mask
MOV R4, #0x3 // R4 EOR mask
AND R5, R6, R3 // Extract desired values

When this rendered, each token was given a span tag, so it can be identified and highlighted individually.

But the second MOV instruction had a different class than the first? And comments were given an err class, but the first “token” in the comment (A) was a seemingly valid nf class? What was this library doing under the hood?

To avoid running Emacs every time Jekyll publishes, jekyll-org uses org-ruby. This library + standalone program handles conversion from Org to a handful of popular formats. It’s used by GitHub and GitLab to render .org files, too.

org-ruby isn’t feature complete, unsurprisingly. The Org manual is big, and it’s the closest thing Org has to a specification. This makes the [two interoperable implementations] rule tough, much less a modest subset such as org-ruby.

jekyll-org supports syntax highlighting with pygments.rb, a Ruby library. (Note: Jekyll no longer uses it under the hood, and instead uses Rouge. No idea if this will stop working in a newer version of Jekyll.)

Since I’m essentially using two Org implementations, there will be discrepancies between what I see & what’s actually rendered. And you can forget about Evaluating Code Blocks to show code output alongside source. So I can’t use any advanced Org features with this library.

Not a deal breaker, but certainly disappointing.

Using Emacs to export Org as HTML

Jekyll supports a handful of markup formats: one Emacs-compatible approach is to export a .org as another markup format, and hand that off to Jekyll.

Off the bat, I’m not that fond of this approach.

Going from source->target to source->inbetween->target I can accept, since the inbetween is essentially just an HTML body that Jekyll drops into a new page.

What I don’t like is the placement of the burden: myself. I need to remember to export Org as HTML before I commit, or even when I want to test something.

This is partially mitigated by git hooks, but git hooks are hard to manage.

Worg has a tutorial for Org->HTML, and Org supports “publishing” configured projects for situations such as these.

The example worked well-enough (it was difficult to customize, but more on that later). This approach also had syntax highlighting problems. I didn’t dig too deep into how Org tries to handle syntax highlighting, but I found out how Emacs does in-editor highlighting: a horrible regexp hack.

Under the hood, syntax highlighting + exporting to HTML is a tricky problem. You need to know something about the target language in order to highlight it properly. I’m not surprised this approach falls flat, especially when languages are embedded in each other.

Using Emacs to export Org as Markdown

I looked at this solution a bit: it was built by someone in a similar circumstance, trying to blog in Org by publishing in Markdown.

It had the same syntax highlighing problems as the Org->HTML approach (not surprising). Also, tags were not supported.

Both of these could be done, but not cleanly.

Both of these were hacky enough that I doubt they’d be accepted into the upstream package (if the user is still active, last changes were ~9 months ago). So this route would likely mean forking, or attempting to follow any future upstream changes. I’d rather not take on the burden of development+maintenance, just to get my text editor configured properly.

Emacs Lisp: beyond the kitchen sink

I ended up settling for jekyll-org: syntax highlighting sometimes doesn’t work, but tags work & I don’t have to think about publishing.

Well, sometimes. I can’t put “no” in a title.

But I was curious about the design decisions that left me with this answer, and why this piece of the ecosystem is left incomplete.

As the narrative goes: no matter your workflow, you can incorporate it with a little Emacs Lisp. But how does a user extend the “most extensible text editor”?

A Bit of History: Standardization(s) of Lisps

Lisp is an ancient language, and Emacs Lisp is one of many Lisp dialects. Lisp is known for having many flavors: in the olden days, any company/college that played around with computers would have their own implementation of Lisp.

While all these dialects look similar (full of parentheses), what functions Lisp provided and how it behaved were not standardized. Most of these fell out of practice after unification under Common Lisp, or no longer use the name “lisp”, (Scheme, Racket, Clojure).

Not Emacs Lisp though. Here we have yet another Lisp standard, standing proudly. Even though the Common Lisp standard has been around since 1984, and Emacs Lisp appeared one year later.

Emacs Lisp is notoriously unpleasant to work with: the massive featureset and strange mannerisms keep myself & others at bay.

It’s moderately user friendly if you approach it as a general-purpose programming language, but I’m not looking for general-purpose tasks (add two integers & print the result to my screen), I’m looking for a way to configure my editor!

ELisp Design rationale

ELisp (and Common Lisp) have a similar approach to built-in functionality: “everything but the kitchen sink”. Every function or paradigm found in the Lisps before have been included, making Lispers of several backgrounds feel at home. That was great for adoption at the time, but painful for standardization & readability today.

In Emacs Lisp, the first element of a list might be retrieved with car, first, or nth 0. car-safe is also available if you don’t trust your input, but first and nth don’t have safe variants. Some styles are supersets of others.

The oddest attribute, in my opinion, is dynamic scoping. Very few languages use it nowadays. No functions are hidden or controlled by what’s usually called scope: what segment of a problem a function or variable is valid in. Instead, they exist on a global binding table.

As a short example: picture a function that declares another function within it.

>>> def a():
...     def b():
...             return "b"
...     return "a"
>>> a()
>>> b()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'b' is not defined

Python (and pretty much any modern higher-level language) has lexical scoping, meaning function b falls out of scope once we’re outside the body of function a.

(defun a ()
  (defun b () "b")

(a) -> 'a'
(b) -> 'b'

In Emacs Lisp, it doesn’t matter where function b was defined, since it’s added to the global symbol table. We can use it outside of it’s “scope”.

This design decision was intentional, and made in the name of flexibility. I would argue against it, in the name of maintainability.

Dynamically scoped modifications are difficult to keep up to date. The original developer, in this case, has essentially failed to define an interface, and the “downstream developer” must work around this deficiency.

Interfaces are how code works nowadays. Systems are huge, and constantly updated. I couldn’t imagine pulling out a piece of MySQL and patching that function, while trying to keep my patch up to date every single time the main software updates. I’d need to track everywhere its used, assumptions callers make about it, and ensure my changes don’t break any of those implicit promises.

It’s worth noting that Emacs has a “trigger” to turn on lexical binding. But that was only added in 2012: the ecosystem is already full of dynamically scoped code.

Emacs design rationale, 30 years later

So, another dialect, and unusual decision decisions. These were built on (now) out of date development practices. Who cares? I’ve talked a little about interfaces, but Emacs has gotten along well-enough with its current approach.

After trying for far too long to customize a piece of ELisp for this project & hitting the roadblocks I listed, I’d like to take a short tour: how does it feel to work with this language?

Configuring an Org project

Going back to the Org->HTML Worg tutorial: one piece covers “publishing” configured projects, for when you want to export in a different format. It has an example configuration.

The #org14785a7 at the end bothers me more than it should. A Markdown-rendered page would link that header tag as #configuring-org-html-export, or the like. I wonder if it’ll break next time someone updates the page.

Anyway, that example works, and you can change the hardlink to the writer’s directory if you like. But I hate that there’s a hardlink in the first place. This took me down my first rabbit hole: how to I make that a dynamic configuration?

Digging myself into, and then out of, a plist hole

As is common with the “kitchen sink” approach, there are plenty of ways to solve a task, and not all of them are obvious.

To the untrained eye, a dynamic working directory should be as simple as replacing ∼/devel/ianbarton/org/ with something like org-ianbarton-base-directory, a variable you’ve set elsewhere with setq, or set as your current directory right before you publish.

However, for this example (and many other configurations), the ' at the beginning of that list makes it not so simple.

Lisp “quotes”, as they’re called, can sorta be thought of as literals. So '(:base-directory org-ianbarton-base-directory) will evaluate the same as (list :base-directory 'org-ianbarton-base-directory).

We don’t want 'org-ianbarton-base-directory (a “literal”), we want org-ianbarton-base-directory (a variable). In order to add dynamic data to that list, I needed to rewrite the entire list with (list ... ).

Not a huge deal. It’ll certainly look different than upstream, which might make tracking upstream changes harder, but that’s a minimal concern.

There was a bigger problem with this solution: it took me around an hour to figure it out.

I had no clue how this plist should be structured when it’s not a quoted list. The big problem was the :-prefixed things. Turns out, those are the exact same as quotes, except their values start with a colon. ':hello and :hello are equal.

This was a simple problem with a relatively simple solution. Maybe I even chose the wrong solution. But I was shocked at what I needed to know to get there:

Data structure: as extensible and free as the ecosystem

“how lists are structured” and “how a package wants things” are big ones for one similar reason: nothing is enforcing the structure of your data. There’s a few examples on how plists are structured, but they aren’t newcomer friendly.

“A list of paired elements”: what’s a pair? It’s not dotted pair notation, it’s literally just “one element shows up at n where n is even, and another shows up at n+1“.

I’ll admit this structure has its uses: “overwriting” a key (I’m just gonna call them keys, key/value pair is a much more recognizable term) is as easy as attaching the value, then key, to the front of the list. Any functions that search plists for a key will stop once they hit that key: the old value of the key (sitting further down the list) will just be ignored.

However, nothing will stop you from adding a single element to the front of this list & destroying all meaning. If '(key1 val1 key2 val2) became '(badval key1 val1 key2 val2), all association is lost. You could maybe repair it by deleting badval, but you’d need more information to delete badval over val2.

Imagine if Python contained a “swap all keys & values in a dictionary” footgun.

Configuration at a cost

All this to say, customization on its own is not appealling enough. If it isn’t reasonably straightforward to customize something, people will look elsewhere for functionality. Sorting through docs for an hour to learn small, critical syntax details is not how I’d prefer to spend my time.

This field has learned in the past 30 years: people are really bad at writing software. Tools for tracking data flow & enforcing sanity checks (either before or during execution) have proven quite useful. ELisp comes from a time prior, and that cost is not minimal.

Discussions on the Future of Emacs


Judging by recent discussions in the space, I don’t expect these problems to be solved anytime soon.

After 30+ years of this “jury rigging” culture, no one person identified the root problem with introducing folks to Emacs: usability.

There are no sensible defaults in this ecosystem. “You can set your own, therefore you will set your own” assumes a level of user understanding. To set your own customizations, you need to understand (at the very least):

And that’s just for internals. If you’d like to use external packages, you’ll be:

Learning these, on top of ELisp (which has several different ways to accomplish each one) is a nightmare. Kitchen sink meets overcustomization, and no newbie wants anything to do with it.


Some Reddit discussion got a little closer, but only a few give specific rationale, or identify the technical setbacks of ELisp crust. Sure, Rust would help the internals move to threading (or async) operations, but ELisp is a whole different beast.

Other “rewrites are bad” and “ELisp must continue to work” rationale is sprinkled throughout.

Attempts to move away from ELisp

There’s been various efforts to rid Emacs of this Lisp dialect, mostly with GNU Guile. That effort has been slow, and is still just a wrapper around Emacs Lisp.

Even if someone were to design a non-Elisp Emacs, it’d further divide the ecosystem. I’m sure folks would stick with the original, just for that reason alone.

Not to mention, the Emacs ecosystem doesn’t always take kindly to criticism. If you’d like to complain, there’s a lovely wiki entry for complaints, full of great examples of No True Scotsman.

Those who want a decent development environment, to develop extensions, “have lost sight of the primary application: the editor”. Having a usable environment means plugins get maintained, instead of half-broken, ancient, black-box scripts floating around the internet.

As long as Emacs lives, so too shall ELisp.

Spacemacs and other “customization suites”

If someone asks me about getting started with Emacs, I have to direct them to Spacemacs. There’s just too much to learn at once in a vanilla Emacs environment. I’m very grateful for the work the Spacemacs developers invested, and they’ve done a wonderful job of turning an ecosystem disaster into a modular set of customizable layers.

Getting started with Spacemacs only means figuring out the keybindings, and a bit of terminology. You want to use a package? Add the layer, add your customizations, and you’re done. Simple. There won’t be a layer for every package under the sun, but it gets a new user 90% of the way there, and the last 10% is doable on your own (if you’re willing to put in the time).

That being said, I don’t believe these “customization suites” should be necessary. They’re solving a problem the developers refuse to: making Emacs usable out of the box.

Sure, the devs would need to have an opinion on things. Maybe endorse some packages, or pull more packages into Emacs itself. Is that really worse than no standard at all?

One comment thread compared this ecosystem to VSCode, and said it much better than I could. Longstanding structural issues & a harsh learning curve.

Org + Jekyll: What’s the verdict?

I used Org as a design example, and even the org package exposes several customization options without using functions. Stallman’s original ideas for extensability aren’t even used in the most mainstream of packages (e.g. Org projects). Yet, the entire ecosystem has to deal with the consequences.

I apologize for the endless amount of rabbit holes, but it makes for a prime example of Emacs configuration: an ecosystem so tangled in itself, it’s difficult to make any progress, especially for newcomers.

In the end, who’s to blame? Emacs? The Org crew? Jekyll?

Me, for writing this instead of writing a better Jekyll integration? Perhaps.

I believe this boils down to two connected problems:

Org is an implementation, not a contract: nothing from the outside world can reproduce it, or work with it.

My beliefs on the future of Emacs

Org is an excellent standard within its ecosystem. I don’t think it’ll die there, but I think it will continue to stagnate, as will ELisp.

It won’t be instantaneous or absolute. may not be immediate, or even noticable. But there’s so much techincal debt accrewed from early, poor design decisions, plus whatever pile of hacks every user lays on top. How do you change or improve a piece of software in that state?

Whether it’s belief or ability, Emacs is not moving toward modern standards. As an example, something like lexical binding could help push the ecosystem toward safe concurrency. However, its manual page says lexically bound variables/functions are just implemented as an alist: essentially, another table. This was in 2012, when multithreading had been king for well over 5 years, yet this addition did nothing to push the ecosystem in a healthy direction.

Sure, we got threads in Emacs 26, but only one runs at a time. That wiki entry is disappointing: “A new Emacs will have no threading” means “every time Emacs is processing something, your text buffer will freeze”, something simply unacceptable for a modern editor.

For me, after years of bending over backwards, my Emacs broke its spine.

I’ve been happy with my switch to VSCode, as extensions are:

I’m sure I’ll still boot up Spacemacs for the Git & GCC support alone. But often, it’s just too much effort.