In article <··············@violet.csl.sri.com>,
···@violet.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
> In article <···············@crawdad.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Marco Antoniotti
> <·······@crawdad.icsi.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> This thread about in-core editors and so on strikes me as a little
>> "off". The ultimate structure editor for any Lisp (Elisp, Scheme or
>> Common Lisp) is Emacs. :)
>
> I'd agree that, overall, using Emacs is a win. But the Interlisp
> structure editor did have some advantages. For instance, every once in
> awhile, when you wound up in the debugger, it was nice to be able to do a
> little surgery on the control structures of a function that you were in
> and continue, rather than having to back up the stack to before the call
> or figure out what value the function should have returned. And maybe the
> fact that this style of editing encouraged you to look at programming as
> modifying an image to make it do what you want rather than writing source
> code -- e.g., you ended an Interlisp session by doing a SYSOUT,
> effectively saving the image, not by saving the source code to be reloaded
> later -- shouldn't be ignored. I think this encouraged a more
> incremental, hackeresque view of the development process.
Ah! At last *someone* else who remembers how LISP systems really ought
to be built! :-) Thanks, Bob... I'd sort of given up on this
thread. Its very tiresome when everyone else around you (i) doesn't
understand JWTF you're talking about, and (ii) consequently thinks
you're an idiot.
Simon
--
·····@intelligent.co.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.intelligent.co.uk/~simon
Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.