From: Christine Van Roosen
Subject: Call for Beta Testers: LispWorks with CORBA for Red Hat Linux on Intel
Date:
Message-ID: <372DDA19.8AF460B9@harlequin.com>
Dear Linux Programmer,
Harlequin is happy to announce the availability of the beta release
of the LispWorks development environment for Red Hat Linux on Intel
hardware. This complete Common Lisp system has the same rich feature
set as LispWorks on the Windows and UNIX platforms. It includes native
compilation, extensive debugging tools, a Foreign Language Interface,
and libraries for CORBA, GUI, database, and rule-based programming.
All LispWorks source code is fully portable to our Windows and UNIX
implementations.
The LispWorks for Linux Personal Edition is available for immediate
download
from the Harlequin Web site at <http://www.harlequin.com/devtools/lisp>.
We are also recruiting testers for the Professional and Enterprise
Editions,
which include some of the more advanced features and libraries. Testing
of the Professional and Enterprise Editions requires the exchange of
paperwork.
If you would like to test one of these Editions, please respond with
your
fax number, and I will begin the process.
We're very excited about this new release of LispWorks, one which
extends
the reach of Common Lisp code to the world's most exciting software
platform.
We hope you'll join us is this adventure.
A full press release describing LispWorks for Linux follows.
Sincerely,
Christine Van Roosen
~~~~~~~~~~~
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Christine Van Roosen
Software Tools Marketing
Harlequin Incorporated
Tel: 1 (617) 374 2486
Fax: 1 (617) 252 6505
E-mail: ···········@harlequin.com
HARLEQUIN ANNOUNCES BETA RELEASE OF LISPWORKS FOR RED HAT LINUX ON INTEL
HARDWARE
Portable implementation of Common Lisp with support for CORBA enables
enterprise development on the Linux platform
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (May 3, 1999) - Harlequin today announced the beta
release of LispWorks(R) with CORBA(R) for the Linux(tm) operating
system. This powerful Common Lisp development environment is already
available for UNIX, Windows(tm) 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT(R) 4.0.
By extending support to Linux, Harlequin gives Linux developers the
power of a complete native Common Lisp development system, with source
code that is fully portable across a variety of platforms.
"Today's most creative software development is done on Linux," said
John Hotchkiss, vice president of the Harlequin Software Tools
Division. "That makes it a perfect match for Common Lisp, which has a
long history of being used for solving problems that have never been
tackled before. By including CORBA support, by keeping our product
affordable, and by maintaining source code compatibility with our
Windows and UNIX products, LispWorks opens up a whole new set of options
to Linux developers."
A Complete Solution in One Package
LispWorks offers a complete enterprise development solution, built on
Common Lisp and the CORBA distributed object standard.
The LispWorks integrated development environment includes an incremental
optimizing compiler, advanced adaptive garbage collection, object
browsers and inspectors, and extensive debugging features.
Harlequin's CORBA implementation includes a complete IIOP(tm)-compatible
ORB(tm), IDL compiler, and Portable Object Adapter. Other features
supported include the Dynamic Invocation Interface (DII), Dynamic
Skeleton Interface (DSI), and a Common Lisp language binding.
Additional LispWorks libraries and extensions include the portable
Common Lisp Interface Manager (CLIM), database access through
DataWorks/SQL(tm), rule-based programming with the KnowledgeWorks(tm)
expert system tool, Common Prolog, and a complete Foreign Language
Interface.
An Edition for Every Need
LispWorks for Linux gives developers a choice of three Editions to meet
a variety of programming needs:
� LISPWORKS FOR LINUX ENTERPRISE EDITION includes CLIM 2.0,
DataWorks/SQL, KnowledgeWorks and Harlequin Common Lisp ORB. It is
ideal for the full range of commercial and enterprise software
development.
� LISPWORKS FOR LINUX PROFESSIONAL EDITION includes CLIM 2.0 and is
suitable for commercial software developers without enterprise software
development needs. The Professional Edition supports the delivery of
efficient standalone applications without runtime license fees.
� LISPWORKS FOR LINUX PERSONAL EDITION is available free of charge from
the Harlequin Web site (http://www.harlequin.com/devtools/lisp). This
Edition is designed for students and others learning Common Lisp and
Linux development. The Personal Edition does not support the delivery
of standalone applications.
All Editions run on Intel(R) hardware, and have been tested against Red
Hat(R) Linux versions 5.1 and 5.2.
About Becoming a Beta Tester
LispWorks for Linux is available for immediate beta testing. The
Personal Edition is available for immediate download from the Harlequin
Web site. The Professional and Enterprise Editions are available by
arrangement with Harlequin. Interested parties should send e-mail to
·········@harlequin.com.
Additional product information and background material on the Harlequin
Common Lisp programming language and product family are available on the
Harlequin Web site (http://www.harlequin.com/devtools/lisp).
About Harlequin
Harlequin is a major provider of professional software development
tools. Since 1986, the company has been dedicated to the development and
delivery of highly creative and effective solutions to customers'
problems -- from telecommunications software to color management
technology. Harlequin has grown into a global software company with
world-class expertise in intelligence analysis, information management,
software development and delivery tools, high-quality digital printing
and publishing, and image sequence
processing. The company has offices in the United States, the United
Kingdom and Australia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright �1999 Harlequin Group plc. All rights reserved. Harlequin and
LispWorks are registered trademarks and KnowledgeWorks and DataWorks are
trademarks of Harlequin Group plc. Windows and Windows NT are registered
trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. All other brand or product names
are the trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
All products and specifications are subject to change. Harlequin makes
no warranty and accepts no liability for any loss or damage
arising from the use of information or particulars in this document.
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <87btg1nw1r.fsf@2xtreme.net>
Well, I've installed the thing and thought I'd share my initial
impressions and thoughts.
* Unlike Allegro's Linux Trial version, there is a heap size limit.
* Also unlike Allegro's Linux Trial version, there is a 5-hour time
limit. No big deal, but I'm the kinda guy that never, ever shuts
anything down. I've got 50 days, 22 hours on kernel 2.2.3 right now
and X, XEmacs, Netscape and at least one Lisp have run non-stop for
good portions of that time. I can't have the pleasure of waking up
in the morning and switching to a buffer with last-night's session,
but since it's not integrated with Emacs it doesn't really matter
anyways (I guess).
* You can't save an image. Allegro lets you do this but I don't use it
anyways because you can't dump the profiler when you do this with
the Trial Edition.
* The press release mentioned CORBA, but this is an add-on not
available in the Personal Edition.
* IDE has _a ton_ of functionality and features - really
heavyweight. There is a lot of stuff you get that you don't get with
Allegro or CMU, like every kind of graphical browser you could
imagine. I'm more of an Emacs guy, and so far like the Franz ELI
more, but most people (especially Windows Visual-this-and-that
types) will probably prefer this. I'll have to spend some time
playing with all these graphical-thingies it has to see if they are
more productive than the Emacs Way....
* Has an Emacs-like editor. It immediately reminded me of Hemlock. It
does a lot of stuff almost exactly like Hemlock instead of more in
the GNU/X Emacs style. One annoyance is that Control-j does not work
in either their listener nor in the editor. By "work" I mean do a
linefeed or newline-and-indent like it works in any Emacs and pretty
much in the whole rest of Unix. Control-m doesn't do a newline
either if you're one of those types.
* They threw the entire Common Lisp HyperSpec (TM) into the doc
tarball. Might have preferred it packaged separately, but perhaps
it's for the better. BTW: It is version 5.0 - didn't Kent say a few
days ago that 4.0 was newest (had one-line legal fix difference from
3.0)?
* Includes CAPI GUI builder. Has a Garnetish feel so far, though
definitely different. I've been writing a lot of Java/Swing code
lately (over 2000 lines not long ago), and so far have actually
really liked Java for making GUI apps, but using Lisp to
interactively define and add components is definately nicer.
* Documentation: Grade A. Seems more tutorialish than what you get
with CMU or Allegro, and has a feeling of greater organisation.
Can't think of anything else to mention at the moment. I am so far
impressed and looking forward to gaining more intimate familiarity
with this product. I'm using Debian 2.0/2.1/2.2 and there were a few
problems I'll have to report with the install when I tried to
customize it but nothing that stopped me from getting the install
done. Anyone with a Linux installation should download this and check
it out.
Christopher
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwwvypqkjm.fsf@world.std.com>
······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) writes:
> Well, I've installed the thing and thought I'd share my initial
> impressions and thoughts.
>
> * Unlike Allegro's Linux Trial version, there is a heap size limit.
> * ... there is a 5-hour time limit. ...
> * You can't save an image.
These are the same restrictions you find on the Windows version.
It is easy to compare these to the Allegro version, but I encourage
you not to do that for two reasons.
* LispWorks did not used to be on Linux at all. I think it is laudible
that they have kept up any free version. I know the Lisp community thinks
it now "expects" a free version, but I assure you from my personal
experience in the companies providing these that each and every free
version is hard-fought and you owe a debt of gratitude to every single
vendor every single time they provide you anything in this arena,
regardless of use restriction. No vendor owes you this. And no vendor
is so rich that they can "obviously" afford to do this.
(I have to say that while I found your review here useful, Chris,
and I'm sure it's intended to be helpful, the one element of it
that seemed "unfair" was the listing of several negative features
above positive ones. Free is free, and deserves the positives up
front.)
* I think the discussion cares with it an implicit burden on Franz
to continue its free, full-featured version on linux. I personally
think that's a pretty high standard and I'm personally surprised
Franz has done it. I think, again, that it's great that Franz has
done this but if there came a day when they did not, I fear remarks
by the community saying that they'd done a Bad Thing by doing so.
I think that would be an unfair and insensitive assessment.
Franz's elaborate version is a good thing for as long as they provide
it, but even they are not traitors if they cease doing it.
* I think that while there is a need for free versions, I don't think
every version has to be free. A marketplace of price points is good.
It's good where people have written small and cheap lisps, but we
have a lot of free options--enough that it's fair and appropriate to
have some that are generating revenue.
* Many of us complain about Franz licensing of commercial runtimes,
the restrictions on which are more complex than Harlequin.
If you don't see that this is a big ecology, in which every time you
demand "free" stuff at one end you make it hard to get prices down
at the other, you don't have the same economic model that I do.
I think the Harlequin product has a fairly good set of restrictions
and is really a model for price and functionality, especially when
taken in context of their other offerings. Unless we mean to be
operating just selfishly (the "I use linux and don't distribute
commericial lisp software so everyone else can be damned" model),
and I'm not saying you do but I'm just presenting that as a contrasting
point of view, it seems that the most important thing is to optimize
the system, and I'd *rather* see Harlequin's notion of crippling in
exchange for Harlequin's pricing than see Harlequin shift to a more
open "free" version at the expense of more license fees at the high end.
THAT would be a disaster. Ditto for Franz, I'd rather tell Franz it
offers TOO MUCH in the free version and that it would be better to have
Harlequin-style restrictions on its free version if there could be any
motion toward a Harlequin-style license policy.
I don't think the market will starve without a Harlequin or Franz
unrestricted version. GCL and CMU CL and others will pick up the
slack. But I think it WILL hurt badly soon if there isn't an
affordable license version on par with conventional languages like
Java, etc. where you can buy the product and develop at least some
COMMERCIAL software at a fixed cost with NO license fee for delivery.
And that belief is not based on a notion of Right on my part--we don't
have a right to that, I just don't see a way for Lisp to compete if
that's not offered. I think Harlequin has done a good job in this
particularly critical pricing arena, stopping some of the hemorrhaging
that Lisp had been doing to other languages, but I think we don't yet
have a rich amount of competition in that particular area. (I
suspect, but don't know for sure because I have a very slow Mac, that
MCL is a good offering in this arena, too. I don't mean to leave them
out; it's just ignorance on my part.) Anyway, just keep repeating the
mantra "the money has to come from somewhere". The free software
arena and the open source arena are good things to the extent that
they show where revenue for sustained businesses can come from, but I
think it remains to be shown that they will support markets other than
(a) sale of iron [i.e., machines], (b) sale of by-the-hour personpower
[i.e., seminars, paper books, people on phones answering questions,
etc.], and (c) vertical markets. None of these markets place an
economic value on the actual thing which is free, and mostly just
build new markets on the backs of those foolhardy enough to have built
the platform for those new markets. If the open source arena doesn't
figure out how to pay the people who build new markets instead of just
demanding everything for free, I suspect that either it will be
unsustainable or, if sustainable, it will rely on a perpetual supply
of idiots willing to give away their labor free becuase they haven't
yet learned how much their free contributions will be taken for
granted and how bitter/mean/fickle the world will be to them if they
ever hint they want something in return.
This Lisp community is in a delicate ecological balance. It needs
free offerings, but not because we are morally entitled. It's like
"good education" and "good health care". We need those things, too,
but they are not Rights. Rights are things that are free to offer (as
contrasted with free to receive) in a steady state system. We should be
pleased and proud when we can offer things to people beyond mere Rights,
but we should be ever-watchful of our ungrateful side when we fail to
appreciate that to which we aren't entitled because lack of appreciation
is one of several things that threatens those extras.
Another thing that actively threatens these extras is the fact that
the vendors who bring you these things, from small to large, MUST get
their revenue from somewhere or you won't get any more free things.
As such, I'm particularly disturbed by your remark that you expect of
a free thing the following: "I'm the kinda guy that never, ever shuts
anything down." I think this is a *very* small price to pay for
freeware, and I think at some point, we need to develop an ethic of
saying that if we get a certain quality of service--and 24/7
reliability must certainly be among this--that we should not think
"isn't it great they gave me this for free" but rather "how can I get
some money to these people". The easiest way is to buy a copy of the
next-up version. I think we need to see such a purchase as a way of
saying "I am finally to the point where I can get by well enough to
contribute to the idea that the next person in line who needs a leg up
should get the break I was given".
(I wrote these previous three paragraphs in an order other than I
presented them. I fear that there is no proper linear ordering of
them and apologize if the information presented seems haphazard or
somewhat redundant. It's late and I have to sleep, so please take my
apologies in lieu of repair.)
I hate to pick on you here, Chris, because I appreciate for example
that you've written a "free review", and we need those, too. I myself
am not paid for my recent frequent posts here, and I know how that is.
Your post just gave me an opportunity to comment generally on a number
of things I've seen from people on this newsgroup, and you should not
feel this is all on you. Moreover, others not specificaly addressed
here should not feel you are 100% free of some need to think hard
about these issues if you've been one to beat up vendors for not doing
more in the "free" area. There was a time when the Lisp industry
needed a lot more investment in the free area, but I allege it now
does not need this. Anyone who wants more free stuff is welcome to
contribute it. What the Lisp industry needs now, IMO, is more in the
area of "fixed cost royalty-free licensing" for functionality
comparable to what other languages have, so we don't get beat up for
not having comparable pricing for comparable value. If Lisp wants to
charge extra for a runtime compiler in a delivered image and other
unique features of Lisp, that's great. But if commercial versions of
"hello world" are costing royalties, or are even costing the cost of
calling a company and asking if it's going to cost, then that is the
price that's too high and I would readily sacrifice a vendor or two of
"free non-commercial Lisp" to get that fixed because I know there are
enough other "free non-commercial Lisp" offerings to take up the
slack, and there are not enough of the other.
> * The press release mentioned CORBA, but this is an add-on not
> available in the Personal Edition.
I wondered about this. Thanks for clarifying.
I actually think it would be an extraordinarily clever thing for Lisp to
rocket ahead in the marketplace if it would bundle CORBA free. I've
said this before, but it bears repeating:
I know vendors see that now as a money source, but I fear it will be
short-lived. I predict CORBA will have another year or two of
charged-for revenue until the next layer or two of CORBA commodityware
is in the market and making good money. Then I think CORBA will lose
commecial value and be standard in Java and others. If Lisp has not
built stuff atop CORBA by then, Lisp will be majorly behind the curve
and will be ailing against Java pricing of CORBA just as it is already
on the royalty issue I cited above. (I fear the same of SQL access,
btw, which I think ultimately will be bundled into base language costs
as new layered things come along to charge for and as it becomes more
and more the case that no serious application is written without these
things so it becomes more and more pointless to charge separately.) If
there is the cash flow to manage it, my personal assessment is that
it's a worthwhile risk (and it *is* a major risk for companies to do,
so I understand their hesitance) for them to make a big deal of
low-cost, convenient CORBA access through Lisp. I think if they fail
to do this, they will be hard-pressed to come up with as useful a
next-generation technology to charge for if/when prices drop on this.
What they need to have that next-generation technology is cheap access
to the present technology *for commercial purposes* to be sure that Lispers
are investing in commercialware in Lisp instead of just dabbling, which
is my great fear about the free personal editions. They are taxing us
for doing commercial stuff and rewarding non-commercial, and I fear
that's a bad dynamic. I think rewarding "entry" is good, and so I think
free versions should carry you a certian distance, but like welfare
or education loans, you should see it as a "start" not a "lifestyle".
> * Has an Emacs-like editor. It immediately reminded me of Hemlock. It
> does a lot of stuff almost exactly like Hemlock instead of more in
> the GNU/X Emacs style. One annoyance is that Control-j does not work
> in either their listener nor in the editor. By "work" I mean do a
> linefeed or newline-and-indent like it works in any Emacs and pretty
> much in the whole rest of Unix. Control-m doesn't do a newline
> either if you're one of those types.
From my LispWorks init file (for other platforms, older versions, but
probably still works):
;; Set up control-digits and control-meta-digits.
;; Meta-digits are already presumably set up.
(editor:bind-key "Negative Argument" #\control-\-)
(editor:bind-key "Argument Digit" #\control-\0)
. . . ;etc.
(editor:bind-key "Argument Digit" #\control-\9)
(editor:bind-key "Negative Argument" #\meta-control-\-)
. . . ;etc
(editor:bind-key "Indent New Line" #\Control-j)
(editor:bind-key "New Line" #\Control-m)
(editor:bind-key "Continue Tags Search" #\Control-\.)
;;; Define synonyms for names used by the Lisp Machine and/or Emacs
(editor:define-command-synonym "Reparse Attribute List" "Process File Options")
(editor:define-command-synonym "Report Bug" "Bug Report")
(editor:define-command-synonym "Save File Buffers" "Save All Files")
(editor:define-command-synonym "Visit Tags Table" "Visit Tags File")
> * They threw the entire Common Lisp HyperSpec (TM) into the doc
> tarball. Might have preferred it packaged separately, but perhaps
> it's for the better. BTW: It is version 5.0 - didn't Kent say a few
> days ago that 4.0 was newest (had one-line legal fix difference from
> 3.0)?
No, v5 is the one I mentioned that was current. v5 is the one with the
DOS/8.3 short filenames and the improvements to the indexing of sharpsign
readmacros and format ops in the master index. v5 is missing the java
applet in the symbol index. See http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
if you want to look up my post on this from last week.
> * Includes CAPI GUI builder. Has a Garnetish feel so far, though
> definitely different. I've been writing a lot of Java/Swing code
> lately (over 2000 lines not long ago), and so far have actually
> really liked Java for making GUI apps, but using Lisp to
> interactively define and add components is definately nicer.
Franz appears to call its GUI builder the "IDE", so there's a
terminological confusion here, IMO. (The term IDE is used ambiguously
in industry, sometimes referring to "debugging environment" and
soemtiems to "development environment" and sometimes other "d" things.)
> * Documentation: Grade A. Seems more tutorialish than what you get
> with CMU or Allegro, and has a feeling of greater organisation.
Since leaving Harlequin, I've had time to look at the CAPI doc that
comes with the free personal version on the PC and am very impressed
with its quality. Full of good cookbook examples. (I wish CLIM had
this quality of doc.)
From: Howard R. Stearns
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <372F634C.1C7092A0@elwood.com>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> ...
> I don't think the market will starve without a Harlequin or Franz
> unrestricted version. GCL and CMU CL and others will pick up the
> slack. But I think it WILL hurt badly soon if there isn't an
> affordable license version on par with conventional languages like
> Java, etc. where you can buy the product and develop at least some
> COMMERCIAL software at a fixed cost with NO license fee for delivery.
> ...
> What the Lisp industry needs now, IMO, is more in the
> area of "fixed cost royalty-free licensing" for functionality
> comparable to what other languages have, so we don't get beat up for
> not having comparable pricing for comparable value. If Lisp wants to
> charge extra for a runtime compiler in a delivered image and other
> unique features of Lisp, that's great. But if commercial versions of
> "hello world" are costing royalties, or are even costing the cost of
> calling a company and asking if it's going to cost, then that is the
> price that's too high and I would readily sacrifice a vendor or two of
> "free non-commercial Lisp" to get that fixed because I know there are
> enough other "free non-commercial Lisp" offerings to take up the
> slack, and there are not enough of the other.
For what it's worth, Eclipse CL has essentially the same licensing model
as a C compiler and library: you pay nothing for distributing hello
world applications. Applications that need development-environment-like
features at runtime like compile, eval, etc., are $500/seat, modulo
negotiations for scale. Furthermore, it even uses the same
linking/main() model as C applications.
If Transducer or whatever is meeting this need for Harlequin and Franz,
that's great. Perhaps they just need need to make people more aware of
it. If they don't have a way of providing this capability, they know
how to reach me....
In article <···············@world.std.com>,
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
>······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) writes:
>
> * I think that while there is a need for free versions, I don't think
> every version has to be free. A marketplace of price points is good.
> It's good where people have written small and cheap lisps, but we
> have a lot of free options--enough that it's fair and appropriate to
> have some that are generating revenue.
>
Digitool provides a free version of MCL which is severely time-limited
(they say they can provide a password to change this, but I have no
experience with this - being a grad student in need of a good
Macintosh CL system for research, I just bought MCL at the student
price).
I believe that it's OK to use this to distribute demo applications
without further ado, although I haven't checked.
> * Many of us complain about Franz licensing of commercial runtimes,
> the restrictions on which are more complex than Harlequin.
> If you don't see that this is a big ecology, in which every time you
> demand "free" stuff at one end you make it hard to get prices down
> at the other, you don't have the same economic model that I do.
I think it reasonable to politely disagree with Digitool as to what
makes the most sense for them, but to be blunt it's their product
and their investment. (Yup, I'm agreeing with you.)
>slack. But I think it WILL hurt badly soon if there isn't an
>affordable license version on par with conventional languages like
>Java, etc. where you can buy the product and develop at least some
>COMMERCIAL software at a fixed cost with NO license fee for delivery.
Digitool sells a redistribution license for MCL for something like
$500, which does not apply to the compiler (the license for shipping
something with compiler enabled is $2500, which IMHO is cheap for
the value).
The result is that a full commercial version of MCL, with right to
ship images without the compiler, is $1000. This is twice as much
money as the C/C++ competition (Metrowerks Codewarrior). IMNSHO,
Macintosh Common Lisp is a much better environment, unless you plan
to ship something smaller than a couple meg. (Not that Lisp has
stopped being a large-footprint language, at least MCL, but that
almost everything commercial seems to be considerably bigger than
the MCL threshhold nowadays.)
The main threat to MCL, as far as I can tell, is the upcoming
move to OS-X, which is the Mac OS on a Mach microkernel. Unless
Apple provides a few additional functions related to application
control of virtual memory, some MCL features are going to become
awfully slow.
Other than that, and the fact that most people would rather walk
in C++ rather than fly in CL, I'd say Digitool is in good shape.
(This is, of course, without looking at their financial statements.)
They haven't done much on MCL lately, which I figure is because
they've been implementing CLIM.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
·····@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <3732433c.85806@news.mclink.it>
On Tue, 04 May 1999 07:11:14 GMT, ······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)
wrote:
> but since it's not integrated with Emacs it doesn't really matter
> anyways (I guess).
[...]
> imagine. I'm more of an Emacs guy, and so far like the Franz ELI
> more, but most people (especially Windows Visual-this-and-that
It may be possible to modify one of the inferior Lisp modes so that Emacs
can interact with a LW listener through sockets.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
On Tue, 04 May 1999 07:11:14 GMT, ······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)
wrote:
> but since it's not integrated with Emacs it doesn't really matter
> anyways (I guess).
[...]
> imagine. I'm more of an Emacs guy, and so far like the Franz ELI
> more, but most people (especially Windows Visual-this-and-that
It may be possible to modify one of the inferior Lisp modes so that Emacs
can interact with a LW listener through sockets.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <87yaj4mtpq.fsf@2xtreme.net>
·······@mclink.it (Paolo Amoroso) writes:
> On Tue, 04 May 1999 07:11:14 GMT, ······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)
> wrote:
>
> > but since it's not integrated with Emacs it doesn't really matter
> > anyways (I guess).
> [...]
> > imagine. I'm more of an Emacs guy, and so far like the Franz ELI
> > more, but most people (especially Windows Visual-this-and-that
>
> It may be possible to modify one of the inferior Lisp modes so that Emacs
> can interact with a LW listener through sockets.
One absolutely could get it working with ilisp, but if you want more
features than to just type statements one-by-one into the REPL like
symbol-completion then you've got to do a lot of tedious work to
really integrate it smoothly (and ilisp is a little messed up in some
ways right now to. Another orphan.).
Christopher
·······@mclink.it (Paolo Amoroso) writes:
> On Tue, 04 May 1999 07:11:14 GMT, ······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry)
> wrote:
>
> > but since it's not integrated with Emacs it doesn't really matter
> > anyways (I guess).
> [...]
> > imagine. I'm more of an Emacs guy, and so far like the Franz ELI
> > more, but most people (especially Windows Visual-this-and-that
>
> It may be possible to modify one of the inferior Lisp modes so that Emacs
> can interact with a LW listener through sockets.
>
>
> Paolo
> --
> Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
I have been using lispworks with ilisp forever (about four years) on unix
boxes. I've done this with emacs and xemacs, with lispworks 3.2.2 and
4.1. I have rarely used the graphical development environment. Invariably I
do so when I want one of the manuals. I can't imagine them doing something
different from what they have done for other flavors of unix, so it should
still be possible there.
Sunil
From: Drew McDermott
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <373AE014.FBC6B004@yale.edu>
Christopher R. Barry wrote:
> * Has an Emacs-like editor. It immediately reminded me of Hemlock. It
> does a lot of stuff almost exactly like Hemlock instead of more in
> the GNU/X Emacs style. One annoyance is that Control-j does not work
> in either their listener nor in the editor. By "work" I mean do a
> linefeed or newline-and-indent like it works in any Emacs and pretty
> much in the whole rest of Unix. Control-m doesn't do a newline
> either if you're one of those types.
You can fix the C-j problem by putting this in your .lispworks file:
(editor:bind-key "Indent New Line" #\control-\j)
I do sometimes wish the editor were a bit more emacs-like. For instance:
it would be nice if searches were terminated by newline instead of ESC;
and dired would be even nicer.
-- Drew McDermott
From: Pierpaolo Bernardi
Subject: Re: Initial thoughts: new Lispworks for Linux.
Date:
Message-ID: <926693433.353517@fire-int>
Drew McDermott (··············@yale.edu) wrote:
: You can fix the C-j problem by putting this in your .lispworks file:
: (editor:bind-key "Indent New Line" #\control-\j)
Unfortunately, you cannot. The free lw does not load ~/.lispworks.
Ok, you can load it by hand.
: I do sometimes wish the editor were a bit more emacs-like. For instance:
: it would be nice if searches were terminated by newline instead of ESC;
: and dired would be even nicer.
> I do sometimes wish the editor were a bit more emacs-like. For instance:
> it would be nice if searches were terminated by newline instead of ESC;
> and dired would be even nicer.
Agreed for dired.
P.