I'm using Atom and Atom-Slime for Common Lisp. In the REPL I'm finding that I can't read user input. The line
(read-line *query-io*)
just hangs. The REPL doesn't register any key presses.
As I tried to debug, I'm finding that I can output to *query-io* just fine:
(format *query-io* "hello")
prints as one expects.
Also, the problem doesn't seem to be with (read-line), I can read from a file with no problems:
(let ((infile (open <some-file>)))
(format t "~a%" (read-line infile))
(close infile))
Does anyone know what's going on?
As said by Coredump, you should use the SLIMA extension instead. It is a fork of Atom-Slime, the maintainer of which unfortunately didn't share push rights for other maintainers to relay him.
But how could you know?
By having a look at the GitHub repository, you would have seen this mention:
Note: It's been hard to find the time to actively maintain this project. For a more recently-maintained version, please see the SLIMA Project, which builds off the code here. Good luck!
Unfortunately, the Atom package was not updated, so we don't see it on the Atom extensions page. But that's not my poit.
Since a few years some online resources have been thoroughly improved [1] and can help, I hope, as a goto reference for future questions and recommendations:
The Common Lisp Cookbook: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/
with an Editors page: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/editor-support.html where we see plugins for several popular editors (Atom, VSCode, Sublime Text, Eclipse, Geany… not counting Emacs and Vim), links to other editors (Lem, built in CL), custom REPLs (cl-repl, sbcli), and notebooks (Jupyter notebook).
the Awesome-CL list: https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl
with an Editors section too
which we can find also on https://common-lisp.net/libraries#header1-526
The historical resource is Cliki. It is a mess sometimes, but it can be useful. In the case of Atom-Slime, it is up-to-date and refers to SLIMA: https://www.cliki.net/atom-slime
And while I'm at it, there is also lisp-lang.org: https://lisp-lang.org/wiki/article/editors This site was the most beautiful one before common-lisp.net saw a rewrite, and is now less useful. It still has a beautiful showcase of Lisp success stories. And for more Lisp companies using CL, see awesome-lisp-companies (but don't assume it's complete!).
I hope that now, when you ask yourself "what can I use for … in Common Lisp", you'll find answers there, before using a search engine.
Best,
[1] disclaimer: often by myself
Related
Christian Queinnec has written a masterpiece called LISP In Small Pieces, which features eleven Lisp Interpreters and two Lisp compilers.
When you go to download the code from the website here - it has the comment:
The programs of this book are available on the net.
These programs used to run with some Scheme systems around 1994.
Any idea:
(a) What Scheme systems these ran on at the time, and more importantly;
(b) What Scheme systems these would run on today?
There's a lot of programs in there. I did a few tests to see how well I could answer this without having to try them individually. There are 131 files in the tarball with extension ".scm". However there appear to be Scheme programs with other extensions such as .bgl. So I did a search for files containing 'L i S P' in the first five lines. That yields 173 files. I tried running all of these on my preferred Scheme implementation. 31 of these run without error. Almost all of these are in the "src" directory. So the language-specific programs really do seem language-specific. Let's look at one of the src/ files that failed, "chap9z.scm". It's choking on define-abbreviation. I don't know the origin of this symbol, but it's not defined anywhere in guile. But all of its uses could be performed by guile's syntax-rules.
Some Scheme implementations that existed in 1994 still are still around and maintained: Scheme 48, Chez Scheme, Gambit, Bigloo, MIT Scheme and SCM.
Probably the code from LiSP will run in other modern Scheme systems such as Guile or Larceny.
Personally, I would recommend using Racket. Most likely, much of the code will run in #lang racket with no changes, and there's no requirement to use [] (but your code may be easier to read :). Things that don't work are probably easy to fix, and you can also use the R5RS language implementation provided by Racket which will likely work for all of the code.
(a) What Scheme systems these ran on at the time
The Makefile in the source tarball from the author's website has targets for running the code under bigloo, elk, gambit, mit-scheme, scheme2c, and scm.
The Makefile mentions SCM 4e1 and Bigloo 1.9d as known working versions, though I haven't tested them myself. I didn't find any mention of specific versions for the other schemes.
(b) What Scheme systems these would run on today?
The code in this github repo has been updated so that almost all of the tests in the included test suite pass with current (as of 06/2014) versions of bigloo, gambit, and mit-scheme.
If you just want to be able to run the code and follow along with the book, one of those schemes should work for you.
[full disclosure: I'm the owner of the repo and I'm a Scheme noob. The code in the repo is WOMM certified, but your mileage may vary.]
If, on the other hand, you're not content to use bigloo / gambit / mit-scheme, it shouldn't be too hard to add support for guile / racket / insert-favorite-scheme-here. Use one of the book.* files as a starting point, e.g. gambit/book.scm or mitscheme/book.mit. If you can get a version of book.scm to load in your favorite scheme, then have a look at the test.interpreters make target, and finally the grand.test target to verify things are working as expected.
The included README file states:
These files were tested with a Scheme interpreter augmented with
a test-suite driver (tester.scm),
the define-syntax and define-abbreviation macros (using
Dybvig's syntax-case package),
and an object system: Meroonet (meroonet.scm).
Bigloo, Scheme->C, Gambit, Elk or SCM can be used. The first three are
better since a specialized interpreter may be built that contains a
compiled Meroonet and compiled hygienic macros.
Apparently Appleby has posted an updated version of the source code. Racket is missing though )=
See https://github.com/appleby/Lisp-In-Small-Pieces
I use Emacs everyday as it is the standard editor for Erlang.
I decided as my New Years Resolution to learn to programme eLisp. I decided that writing a book about eLisp was the best way to learn.
I have make pretty good progress:
Learn eLisp For Emacs
The strategic structure of the book is
getting started/basics
more advanced eLisp
writing a minor mode
writing a major mode
I have got through the basics (ie the first of these 4 points), covering:
evaluating expressions
debugging
adding menu items/toolbars
loading your own emacs files
etc, etc
If you are writing a book about a programming language you usually start by knowing the language well - well I don't - so my major problem now is a completeness problem:
How do I know that I have covered all the features that an Emacs programmer should have mastered?
How do I ensure that there aren't gaps in the content?
So I thought I would address these by asking the community here. My question is What Is Missing From My Table Of Contents? (in particular what should the more advanced eLisp Section contain).
Now that's an interesting way to learn a language...
I think you've probably skipped a bunch of the fundamentals in the getting started/basics section. If you've not already read it, I recommend reading "An Introduction To Programming In Emacs Lisp" (at gnu.org), which covers what I'd expect to see in the "basics" portion. I won't bother cut/paste the table of contents.
As far as knowing when you've written a complete book... Well, once you've re-written the Emacs Lisp manual in "how to" form, you know you're done. Alternatively, if you've written a book that can be used to answer/interpret all of the elisp and emacs questions, then you've probably got decent coverage.
What advanced features could you write about? There's advice, process communication, non-ASCII text, syntax tables, abbrevs, text properties, byte compilation, display tables, images, and a bunch more in the manual.
Note: The proper capitalization of elisp is either all lowercase, or possibly an uppercase E. The GNU documentation doesn't use "elisp" very much at all (mostly as a directory name, all lowercase), it prefers "Emacs Lisp."
Note: In the current version of your book, you treat global variables negatively. It's probably worth reading the RMS paper to gain some insight into the design decisions made, specifically on global variables as well as dynamic binding (the latter which you've yet to cover, which is a key (basic) concept which you've already gotten wrong in your book).
Instead of asking the community here, why not use what the community already offers? Review all the questions tagged "elisp" and see where they fit it your book. A survey of what people actually want to understand could be some of the best information you will get.
"I have read both the GNU manuals - but they are not so much use if you don't know Lisp/elisp."
Tip: Emacs is not much use if you don't know Lisp.
Not really true, of course, but you get the idea. This one is really true:
Tip: Emacs is much, much, much, much more useful if you know Lisp. Not to mention more fun.
Wrt what to learn:
symbols (they are simple objects, with properties -- not just identifiers)
lists -- cons cells, list structure (including modification/sharing)
evaluation
function application
regexps
text/overlay/string properties (values can be any Lisp entities)
buffers and windows
I'd suggest you'll take a look what the two Info manuals included with Emacs Emacs Lisp Intro "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp" and Elisp "The Emacs Lisp Reference Manual" already have to offer and then decide what you would like to add to or do differently than those.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
I'm getting the Lisp language easily enough, but I'm having trouble groking the mechanics of development. One of my issues is dealing with Emacs. I have no experience with it and find it generally confusing with hard to find/figure out commands.
Specific questions:
I get the REPL, but I don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
-I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I
need to change a function I have to
retype the defun and make changes
(tedious and error prone). How can I
do this better?
-How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program?
I'm used to the C model where you have
code files that you can review, edit
and recompile. I know lisp has
something similar (via the load
function), but how does one get a
function I just defined and tested
into a file to be saved? I'm hoping
there's a better method than my
current select+copy+paste.
Load SLIME. Enter code in your .lisp file, and then run slime-eval-buffer to load all your code into Lisp. Then, for a specific function you are hacking on C-e, C-j to redefine it in your running Lisp.
-How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
Yes. (trace 'my-function) - or some variant on that - and when my-function is called, it will break into the debugger.
-As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a
(defun ...). It's not until I try to
use it that I find out it's not valid.
Is there any way to get errors sooner
(i.e. compile the code)?
To some degree, that is a characteristic of dynamic languages (Python, Perl, Ruby, Lisp, etc.). Try SBCL for better error-checking.
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Emacs is the free IDE for Lisp. Allegro has a free edition I believe; I've never tried it though..
-Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Nah, Scheme is not as pragmatic a language.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/Web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
One can also use the LispWorks Personal Edition for learning Lisp. It has some limitations and the full product is commercial, but it is quite a bit easier to use.
I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
The REPL has a history. With keyboard commands you can get back prior input and change it. Other than that just edit a Lisp file and compile code from there. In Lisp you can compile/eval individual expressions and definitions. Typical IDEs like SLIME, LispWorks or Allegro CL allow you to run code also from normal Lisp text windows - additionally to executing expressions in the REPLA (aka Listener).
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
Copy and paste in one thing. But the correct way is to work from a text file in an editor window. One can compile/load expressions, the editor buffer or the associated file.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
See STEP, TRACE and related. SLIME, LispWorks and Allegro CL have lots of additional features.
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
For many cases one uses a compiler. The compiler will find a range of errors and also will note when something is unusual (for example a function does not exist or a variable has not been defined).
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
LispWorks, Allegro CL are the best under Windows. There are some alternatives like Corman Lisp (I don't know it is maintained right now) or even Ufasoft Lisp.
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Not really.
It doesn't sound like you're really using SLIME, or at least not in the way it was intended to be used. ("have to retype the defun", "the C model where you have code files")
I recommend watching some SLIME screencasts (or, even better, watching a Lisp programmer use SLIME for a few minutes, if you have one handy). The SLIME webpage has a couple.
It sounds like you'd really enjoy the DrRacket IDE. Racket is closer to Scheme than to Common Lisp, but you could dip your toes into the Lisp family without the speed bump of the Emacs style of development.
I've been using org-mode for a little while, I've kept it really simple for now, with only two files :
one to act as an inbox, with remember-mode
another where I stick just about anything that's been processed from the inbox
This is great for managing somewhat 'actionable' items, but I keep adding things of a more general nature, that I won't be needing on a day-to-day basis (how-tos, reading notes etc), so it's getting slow and hard to manage.
The material I'm concerning myself with doesn't fit the /projects/tasks/sub-tasks paradigms, they are more like little knowledge nuggets on selected topics, which are inherently more complex to classify and manage.
I've been wondering what kind of structure could be used to handle that kind of information (classification and retrieval), and if there are maybe other modes that could help with the job ?
I guess there is no pre-made answer to this question, since everyone may have different needs.
Noufal gave good conceptual tips that I'll keep in mind, but overall, the accepted answer provided more pragmatic views on this, the linked resource was a GREAT read.
I think this excellent document on how to use org-mode to it's fullest potential will be very helpful to you: "Org Mode: Organize Your Life In Plain Text". It is lengthy reading, but trust me, completely worth the effort.
UPDATE:
You can use the remember-mode section mentioned in the document for your use-case. (I use it for the same use-case) Remember-mode is extremely handy to make quick notes. I use it when I have to store random observations or information that won't go anywhere else. I use the following templates for remember:
(setq org-default-notes-file (concat org-directory "/remember-notes.org"))
(setq org-remember-templates
`(("Todo" ?t "* TODO %?\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/remember-notes.org") bottom)
("Misc" ?m "* %?\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/Notes.org") "Misc")
("iNfo" ?n "* %?\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/Notes.org") "Information")
("Idea" ?i "* %?\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/Notes.org") "Ideas")
("Journal" ?j "* %T %?\n\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/journal.org") bottom)
("Blog" ?b "* %T %? :BLOG:\n\n %i\n" ,(concat org-directory "/journal.org") bottom)
))
As you can see, misc notes and other information goes in the notes.org file under the headings Misc and Information. If the note I'm making doesn't fall in any of the categories defined above, it gets filed in the default file (remember-notes.org) and I can always refile it to another location at a convenient time. This makes my note-taking, jotting down random ideas, and such things extremely simple, without taking away the focus from the job I'm currently doing.
[org-mode] is great for managing somewhat 'actionable' items, but I keep adding things of a more general nature, that I won't be needing on a day-to-day basis (how-tos, reading notes etc), so it's getting slow and hard to manage.
I'm a follower of David Allen and his Getting Things Done methodology. I'm using Emacs for three of the lists he recommends:
Next Actions
Project Resources
The Someday/Maybe list
The material I'm concerning myself with doesn't fit the /projects/tasks/sub-tasks paradigms, they are more like little knowledge nuggets on selected topics, which are inherently more complex to classify and manage.
I've been wondering what kind of structure could be used to handle that kind of information (classification and retrieval), and if there are maybe other modes that could help with the job ?
For this kind of information I've migrated away from emacs. Instead I keep a directory ~/etc/howto, and in that directory I put files that contain "little knowledge nuggets on selected topics", where the key criterion is that the information has long-term value.
I could search this directory with Emacs, but my Emacs Lisp is not so hot, so I wrote a howto shell script instead (some error checking omitted for clarity):
case $# in
1) ;;
*) echo "Usage: $0 <topic>" 1>&2; exit 2 ;;
esac
topic="$1"
# Note the ordering: first exact matches, then beginning matches, then any matches
set xxx `find $HOME/etc/howto/. -name "$topic" -not -type d -print` \
`find $HOME/etc/howto/. -name "${topic}?*" -not -type d -not -name '*~' -print` \
`find $HOME/etc/howto/. -name "?*$topic*" -not -type d -not -name '*~' -print`
shift
case $# in
0) echo "No file found matching *$topic*" 1>&2 ; exit 1 ;;
*) for i
do
less "$i"
done
;;
esac
Examples include:
howto football brings up three nuggets, in this order:
Instructions to give to my wife on how to record a football game on the computer
Instructions for me as exactly what to take and how to dress when I have tickets to a football game
Instructions for transcoding a football game so it can be transmitted over the net and viewed away from home
howto filesystem brings up instructions on how to copy a filesystem
howto batteries brings up a list of recommended rechargeable batteries
One reason I don't use Emacs is that my real script is a little more complicated than what you see above: it also handles PDF and djvu files, so for example howto razor brings up a djvu document of the manual which came with my electric razor.
I have over 500 items in the main directory or in subdirectories, and even at this scale the system works quite well for me. I hope you may find it helpful too.
I personally keep a list of project directories with somewhat similar structure. Each has a tasklist.org, a tracking subdirectory (where I do project estimates and time tracking and always maintain a diary which is the main thing for the project - it will have links to other files for the project), a docs subdirectory which usually consist of stuff I'm going to publish (docs for the project, proposals etc.). I get my agenda-files to the tasklist.org in each of the subdirectories so that my agenda works fine.
I think the organisation of the data would change a little in your case (perhaps topics like "functional programming" etc.). I'm sceptical of how much a hierarchical structure would help since that would confine you into one way of looking at things (tags vs. folders again). Here are some things that come to mind.
Keep a 'master' org file that has links to all the 'interesting' top level pieces of the other content (similar to the diary I mentioned above).
Tag all your material properly (you'll settle on a set of useful tags after a while) and then use the Tag search feature to search through the files quickly. This assumes that all the files are in your agenda-files though.
Finally, if your data is too exotic to put into a structure, you can consider using a full text indexer (like xapian) and integrate that into your Emacs. There was some discussion of this over here.
Update : 26/Nov/2019
I recently came across the hyperbole package which claims to be a information organiser. I haven't used it but I'm quite tempted to and will update this when I do.
I have tried several ways to manage a knowledge base in the past. I have a bunch of "knowledge nuggets" (btw, thanks, I like that term a lot) on all sorts of diverse topics ranging from how to set up apache tomcat ssl cert, to checklists for doing a monthly family budget, to keeping a list of weights and reps completed on workouts.
I've tried keeping these in a wordpress blog, on a personal wiki, using pen and paper, etc.
In the end, emacs and org-mode is the clear winner for me. I love to have the ability to start simple, and build more complex functionality as I need it. I've used a lot of the tips described by Sacha Chua.
In my case, I always end up with a bunch of notes (more formal and organized) mixed in with action items (less formal). In general I maintain one master "action item" list and then create a separate file for notes on each topic. So far, grep has worked well for me to quickly find the file containing notes. I'll often create a emacs bookmark C-x r m to quickly navigate to notes files as well.
Simple Blogs, CMS, and wikis (like Drupal and Wordpress) are good at classification and retrieval. Maybe you could export org files to html and publish them to a blog, cms or wiki? It might not be too difficult to hook into the blog/wiki/cms tagging capability.
At work, we use a wiki (actually, several - a global wiki plus a wiki per project) for this. It's ideal for non-hierarchical data, but can also be used for hierarchical data. It's formattable, hypertextual, linkable-to, searchable, shareable but also ownable, it maintains history, and other good stuff.
Personally, i used to also use a wiki for this. But these days, i generally just forget things instead. Far easier.
You can speed up org-mode by keeping your notes in a separate file (or one for each broad topic) which is not included in the usual list of agenda files. Customise org-agenda-files to see the list.
Use org-remember to enter notes quickly without interrupting your flow. Either tag them at the time, or save them somewhere to be refiled later. You can use a tag in the remember template (customise org-remember-templates) to mark notes for refiling, and use a custom agenda search (org-agenda-custom-commands) to list them.
Tag each note with relevant topics, and use the agenda view's search facilities to find them. You can define a custom search which knows to look in the right files, or you can visit the file and restrict the agenda search to just that file.
I keep a file of notes, and your question has just inspired me to go back and start tagging them all. Works a treat!
I hold tips in .rst (reStructuredText) files in single directory. Each file have own topic.
For search I use M-x occur, or M-x lgrep, or M-x ack.
Web hosted example: http://tips.defun.work/frame.html and it is easy to turn that pages into blog like solution.
Original sources with build script: http://hg.defun.work/tips/
Main advantage of reStructuredText format:
TOC support.
include syntax.
Ability to build JavaScript based full text offline search index in HTML site with TOC, index, reference by Sphinx!!
Remember Markdown suck at extensibility, RST have regular syntax for marking data by your tokens and include any plain text format as inline into your document. Thinks about graphs with dot, prog lang syntax highlighting, etc.
The material I'm concerning myself with doesn't fit the /projects/tasks/sub-tasks paradigms, they are more like little knowledge nuggets on selected topics, which are inherently more complex to classify and manage.
Use bookmarks and Bookmark+. You can create bookmarks for sets of files and directories, in addition to individual files, and you can tag bookmarks or files, a la delicious, for organization and search purposes.
I've been wanting to teach myself Lisp for a while. However, all the interpreters of which I've heard involve some flavor of emacs.
Are there any command line interpreters, such that I could type this into the command line:
lispinterpret sourcefile.lisp
just like I can run perl or python.
While I'd also like to become more familiar with Emacs (if only not to be frustrated when I work with somebody who uses Emacs), I'd rather decouple learning Emacs from learning Lisp.
Edit: I actually want to follow SICP which uses Scheme, so an answer about Scheme would be more useful. I'm just not that familiar with the differences.
You could also try DrScheme, which whilst not exactly a standalone interpreter, isn't emacs :)
It's basically a simple IDE that has an area to type in code that can be executed as a file, and then another area that is the running interpreter that you can interact with.
(Also, find the UC Berkeley CS61A podcasts and listen to them, as well as reading SICP)
It looks like Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL) also caters to what you want:
http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Shebang-Scripts
SBCL is both top rate and open source.
Checkout CLISP wiki-link that ie. was used by Paul Graham
Direct link
I often write lisp shell scripts which start with this line:
#!/usr/bin/clisp
Then you don't even need to type "lispinterpret" on the command-line. Just mark the script executable and run it directly.
Most scheme interpreters that I am familiar with can be run from the command line. (Much of the list below is extracted from the comparative table at Alexey Radul's Scheme Implementation Choices page. There is a more extensive list at schemewiki but that page does not immediately provide command-line invocation syntax.)
Here's how you run a number of implementations at the command line:
Chez Scheme: scheme, petite
MIT Scheme: mit-scheme
Scheme 48: scheme48
RScheme: rs
Racket: racket (But I recommend trying the DrRacket IDE, especially for beginners.)
Guile: guile
Bigloo: bigloo
Chicken: csi
Gambit: gsi
Gauche: gosh
IronScheme: IronScheme.Console
Kawa: kawa, java kawa.repl
Larceny: larceny
SCM: scm
If you are looking for Scheme to work with the SICP, take a look at MIT/GNU Scheme
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/scheme/
http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/index.html
The most widely used IDE for Common Lisp, particularly in the free software subset of the community, is in fact SLIME, which runs on Emacs. You can use whatever CL compiler you prefer and invoke Lisp source files the way you describe, but if you do that, you won't be taking advantage of many of Lisps dynamic features that are so incredibly useful while developing your application.
I suggest you take a look at this SLIME demonstration video to see what I mean, even though it might be a bit outdated at this point.
If the problem is that you (think you) don't like Emacs, I seriously suggest you try to learn it. Seriously. No, really, I mean that. However, there are alternatives, such as the IDEs provided by commercial Lisp implementations such as Allegro and Lispworks (free trials available), or an Eclipse plug-in called Cusp.
Did you try Allegro CL from http://www.franz.com/?
#Nathan: I've upmodded the Common Lisp links, because you asked about Lisp (especially with reference to Emacs Lisp). However, Common Lisp is very different from Scheme. A program written for one is unlikely to run on the other.
As you mentioned, SICP is for learning Scheme, not Lisp (or at least, not Common Lisp and not Emacs Lisp). There are some overlap in principles, however you can't simply cut and paste code from SICP and expect it to run on any Common Lisp or Emacs Lisp system. :-)
No "interpreter" requires emacs.
Also, emacs can run elisp in a headless manner.
It seems like scheme shell is suitable for your purpose.
Take a look at http://www.scsh.net/index.html
Another good dialect of lisp is cmucl. They used to love to brag about being the "fastest" lisp.