From: Robert Posey
Subject: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A09051.93D0BC3@raytheon.com>
Dear Gentle Sirs,

While the interpreted, or incremental compiled nature of LISP is growing on 
me I still find all the systems I have used to be a pain.  I want to have
the classic watch function where I can step through the code and watch
my variables change.  I want break points that are set with a click, instead
of modifying code.  Is there a LISP IDE that has these functions for a
reasonable price?  Another nice to have would be automatic completion for
structures or classes instants.

Muddy

From: David Bakhash
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE   like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <cxjg0v36szh.fsf@engc.bu.edu>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:

> While the interpreted, or incremental compiled nature of LISP is growing on 
> me I still find all the systems I have used to be a pain.  I want to have
> the classic watch function where I can step through the code and watch
> my variables change.  I want break points that are set with a click, instead
> of modifying code.  Is there a LISP IDE that has these functions for a
> reasonable price?  Another nice to have would be automatic completion for
> structures or classes instants.

If you're not writing any serious apps, but are just learning the
language, then I'd just use Emacs Lisp with its cl.el package.

If you start Emacs or XEmacs, and then evaluate:

(load "cl")

then you can access the step-wise debugger and evaluator.  It's really 
very smooth.  I use it in XEmacs all the time.

If you absolutely insist on using an ANSI CL implementation, then I
don't know the answer.  I have wished for the same, and never found it 
in either Allegro CL (Franz) or Harlequin LispWorks.  Surprisingly,
(X)Emacs beats them both in this respect, as far as I know.

dave
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE   like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A19B3A.497DDE4E@raytheon.com>
David Bakhash wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:
> 
> > While the interpreted, or incremental compiled nature of LISP is growing on
> > me I still find all the systems I have used to be a pain.  I want to have
> > the classic watch function where I can step through the code and watch
> > my variables change.  I want break points that are set with a click, instead
> > of modifying code.  Is there a LISP IDE that has these functions for a
> > reasonable price?  Another nice to have would be automatic completion for
> > structures or classes instants.
> 
> If you're not writing any serious apps, but are just learning the
> language, then I'd just use Emacs Lisp with its cl.el package.
> 
> If you start Emacs or XEmacs, and then evaluate:
> 
> (load "cl")
> 
The class required ANSI CL, though I would prefer not to support Elisp for the
same reasons that Visual J is disliked.  I haven't really run any Elisp programs
in the debugger, though their compiler error messages are so much better than
CLISP or Harlequin  that I have started writing programs to meet Elisp's 
non-standard(read as evil) case sensitive requirements.  I guess I will have
to try the debugger.  Does ELISP have a way to display watches like a C
compiler.

BTW do you have an interface to CLISP built into your XEmacs?  I downloaded
ILISP
but I have tried to install it.  I will admit that Linux, XEmacs still gives
me problems.  I sure hope that if Microsoft is broken up, one of the parts
supports Linux in a big way with user friendly tools that are still highly
configurable.  Despite their problems Microsoft still has the ease for 
casual user department locked up.

Muddy


> then you can access the step-wise debugger and evaluator.  It's really
> very smooth.  I use it in XEmacs all the time.
> 
> If you absolutely insist on using an ANSI CL implementation, then I
> don't know the answer.  I have wished for the same, and never found it
> in either Allegro CL (Franz) or Harlequin LispWorks.  Surprisingly,
> (X)Emacs beats them both in this respect, as far as I know.
> 
> dave
From: Eugene Zaikonnikov
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87se8d$pq7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <···············@engc.bu.edu>,
  David Bakhash <·····@bu.edu> wrote:

> If you absolutely insist on using an ANSI CL implementation, then I
> don't know the answer.  I have wished for the same, and never found
it
> in either Allegro CL (Franz) or Harlequin LispWorks.  Surprisingly,
> (X)Emacs beats them both in this respect, as far as I know.
>
You may want to have a look on Lispdebug by Marc Mertens. Basically it
does all the things I expect from visual debugger. I can't remember its
URL, but web search returned
http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/lispdebug-0.9.tgz
The author also helped a lot with debugger setup. Thanks Marc!

--
  Eugene.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A1BFFF.DA3F7505@raytheon.com>
Eugene Zaikonnikov wrote:
> 
> In article <···············@engc.bu.edu>,
>   David Bakhash <·····@bu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > If you absolutely insist on using an ANSI CL implementation, then I
> > don't know the answer.  I have wished for the same, and never found
> it
> > in either Allegro CL (Franz) or Harlequin LispWorks.  Surprisingly,
> > (X)Emacs beats them both in this respect, as far as I know.
> >
> You may want to have a look on Lispdebug by Marc Mertens. Basically it
> does all the things I expect from visual debugger. I can't remember its
> URL, but web search returned
> http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/devel/lang/lisp/lispdebug-0.9.tgz
> The author also helped a lot with debugger setup. Thanks Marc!

Does it work in windows, its written TCL\TK so it should in theory?

> 
> --
>   Eugene.
> 
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
From: Eugene Zaikonnikov
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87u98g$4qm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <·················@raytheon.com>,
  Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> wrote:
> Does it work in windows, its written TCL\TK so it should in theory?
>
Have no idea really. Looks like it tuned for Linuxen. Perhaps you could
make it working with use of something like gnu-win32, at least you must
be able to run configure scripts in your system.

--
  Eugene.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159124272806425@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
| While the interpreted, or incremental compiled nature of LISP is growing on 
| me I still find all the systems I have used to be a pain.

  Common Lisp systems provide more powerful hammers.  if you are used to
  C/C++, you are numbed to the pain of hitting your thumb with a puny
  hammer (at least conceptually), but now that you hit your thumb that much
  harder, it hurts again, that much more.  the solution is to quit hitting
  your thumb, not to pad your thumb or stifle the hammer's power.

  at some point in time, you learned the C/C++ way, without reference to
  much anything, right?  at this point in time, you should endeavor to
  learn the Common Lisp way, without reference to much anything.  study how
  people experience in the Common Lisp way do it.  do not attempt to use
  your C++ expertise in Common Lisp.  what works for C/C++ has evolved over
  time to be the least painful and/or most efficient.  what governs
  qualities such as "least painful" and "most efficient", however, are
  vastly different for Common Lisp.  it's that simple, really.  _after_ you
  have established rapport with your environment, you should compare them
  in terms of what you can accomplish in each with how much work, not in
  terms of how well a later experience emulates some environment that just
  happened to be a prior experience.

  most people, when they have learned something, tend to think in extremely
  concrete terms about what they are doing.  they think they click on menu
  bars, drag an object, double-click on icons, etc.  they _don't_ think in
  terms of the operation that said physical activity causes to take place,
  even though that is why they perform these physical actions.  so when
  they want to perform that operation in a new environment, they completely
  _ignore_ the fact that they once had to associate the operation with
  these actions, and now request the actions, as if the action and the
  operation were the same.  well, they very obviously aren't, and if they
  think that way, they failed to learn what they were doing in a productive
  and efficient way -- they instead learned to parrot actions.  the sooner
  human beings get out of this modus operandi and become _thinking_ beings,
  the better, and if it hurts a little to get out of parrot mode, so be it.
  most everything worth doing is associated with effort and some pain.

  so, to answer your real question: no, we don't debug functions the same
  way in Common Lisp as in static languages.

  inserting code to get the equivalent of (conditional) breakpoints isn't a
  problem, btw, since you can edit and recompile a function in seconds, and
  if you have to do it with a mouse click, teach Emacs to insert "(break)"
  and recompile the function upon a mouse click.  I fail to see the value
  of such a user interface function, but, hey, it's been years since I set
  a breakpoint in any C code, too, precisely because I'm much more used to
  the Common Lisp way, and even the best C debuggers _suck_, so I spend a
  little more time thinking about the code I write and experimenting in --
  you guessed it, Common Lisp -- before I commit the design to C, almost as
  if by hand-compiling code in a real language into machine instructions
  burned into an EEPROM or something equivalently hardware-like and way
  cumbersome to deal with.  odd as it may seem, writing bug-free C code is
  really a breeze once you have come to appreciate and think in Common Lisp.

#:Erik
From: Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <x2og9p6j8o.fsf@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

>   ... and experimenting in --
>   you guessed it, Common Lisp -- before I commit the design to C, almost as
>   if by hand-compiling code in a real language into machine instructions
>   burned into an EEPROM or something equivalently hardware-like and way
>   cumbersome to deal with.  odd as it may seem, writing bug-free C code is
>   really a breeze once you have come to appreciate and think in Common Lisp.

I've done that too, for things I had to "deliver" in Java.

There are a couple of things that are provided by typical Lisp
implementations (even very simple ones) that I find to be a huge
help: they're interactive, so that I can type in expressions to
try things out; and a fair range of data types have a "printed
representation" that allows me to include instances in source
code.  That means I can test things without having to write a
bunch of I/O routines first.  (Even if I can't type something
in "directly", it's almost always easier to write something that
translates from a list than from a string.

Java's a fine example of a language that doesn't quite get this right.

-- jd
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwu2jgum5i.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:

> * Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
> | While the interpreted, or incremental compiled nature of LISP is growing on 
> | me I still find all the systems I have used to be a pain.
> 
>   inserting code to get the equivalent of (conditional) breakpoints isn't a
>   problem, btw, since you can edit and recompile a function in seconds, and
>   if you have to do it with a mouse click, teach Emacs to insert "(break)"
                                                   ^^^^^

Erik, you are assuming that Robert is using Emacs :)  A bit
unwarranted, isn't it? :)

Mayne the first step is to start using Emacs and dump the "Visual
Whatever" editor.  (Which, btw, usually does a very poor job at
formatting C/C++, w.r.t. the real thing).

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87vh3w11he.fsf@foobar.orion.no>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> Mayne the first step is to start using Emacs and dump the "Visual
> Whatever" editor.  (Which, btw, usually does a very poor job at
> formatting C/C++, w.r.t. the real thing).

        No kidding :-) Trying to use the Microsoft offerings
(in general, including Visual Studio, Internet Explorer, Word and
Outlook) is like having your power drill replaced with a hammer and
chisel, with the added twist that the hammer handle is made from soft
rubber. 

        There - I feel much better now :-)

-- 
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A4184C.F03D07D4@iname.com>
Raymond Wiker wrote:

>         No kidding :-) Trying to use the Microsoft offerings
> (in general, including Visual Studio, Internet Explorer, Word and
> Outlook) is like having your power drill replaced with a hammer and
> chisel, with the added twist that the hammer handle is made from soft
> rubber.
>
>         There - I feel much better now :-)

<rant>
And crashes notwithstanding, anyone that has worked with SGI CaseVision
knows that VisualStudio's
threads debugging is a joke.

           There (me too)
</rant>

Now, I would hold writing source stepping/breakpointing support for
Emacs for a month, and start by adding watchpoint
support to your CL implementation, if it's not there. [Visual Whatever's
"Watch Window" are NO watchpoints! You need CompuWare SoftICE! Or
Rational Purify (slower and requires instrumentation, but at least you
can get it on Unix - except Linux [Is Rational a "Microsoft company"?]),
or a real ICE..]


--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A419E5.9A1AFD64@iname.com>
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:

>
>
> Now, I would hold writing source stepping/breakpointing support for
> Emacs for a month, and start by adding watchpoint
> support to your CL implementation, if it's not there. [Visual Whatever's
> "Watch Window" are NO watchpoints! You need CompuWare SoftICE! Or

Of course, in Lisp they are not that important, while when using C(++)..

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
From: Duane Smith
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3ySnOD8Coromnvktsn6S=n1v1WrY@4ax.com>
Hi,

I am a new LISP programmer - coming from a background of the Visual
Studios tools - and trying to figure out how to setup a similar
environment in emacs. I use the Allegro CL package and their
"fi:common-lisp" editing mode, which does provide some nice features
(indenting, color-coding code, etc), but I still feel that it lacks a
lot of the features of the MS tools. I understand that others who have
been using emacs have discovered that it is a superior tool; however,
I am at a loss to make this discovery for myself. Are there any
on-line documents that document emac's functionality as far as making
the MS tools "like having your power drill replaced with a hammer"?

Thanks in advance,
Jonathan


On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:24:29 GMT, Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no>
wrote:

>Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:
>
>> Mayne the first step is to start using Emacs and dump the "Visual
>> Whatever" editor.  (Which, btw, usually does a very poor job at
>> formatting C/C++, w.r.t. the real thing).
>
>        No kidding :-) Trying to use the Microsoft offerings
>(in general, including Visual Studio, Internet Explorer, Word and
>Outlook) is like having your power drill replaced with a hammer and
>chisel, with the added twist that the hammer handle is made from soft
>rubber. 
>
>        There - I feel much better now :-)
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87900oekx9.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Duane Smith <··@spam.com> writes:

> I am a new LISP programmer - coming from a background of the Visual
> Studios tools - and trying to figure out how to setup a similar
> environment in emacs. I use the Allegro CL package and their
> "fi:common-lisp" editing mode, which does provide some nice features
> (indenting, color-coding code, etc), but I still feel that it lacks a

^^^^^^^^^^^^  Automatic indenting is IMHO not a "nice" feature, it is
essential for any serious programming to take place, especially in the 
team context:  Without AI(<g>), you will either have to spend some
amount of your attention to manual indenting and/or produce unevenly
indented and therefore badly-readable code (remember:  you write code
for your fellow programmers, not for the computer).

> lot of the features of the MS tools. I understand that others who have
> been using emacs have discovered that it is a superior tool; however,
> I am at a loss to make this discovery for myself. Are there any
> on-line documents that document emac's functionality as far as making
> the MS tools "like having your power drill replaced with a hammer"?

Let's turn this question around:  Try to list what functionality from
the Visual Studio environment you find missing, why, and what you are
trying to achieve when you use this functionality.  Given this list,
the readers of c.l.l will most likely be only to happy to point out

a) ways to obtain the functionality, or
b) explain other/better ways of obtaining the indented result, or
c) explain other/better strategies alltogether of achieving the real
   objective,

where appropriate.  This approach will probably help you more than
some on-line documents (for this, just read the fine documentation
that comes with your Emacs)...

To find out various general (and specific) statements of the
functionality of Emacs, just do a search on c.l.l for articles related 
to Emacs (I've written a couple myself, and most other regular posters 
here have done so, too.) on DejaNews.

Some basic aspects that sum up the differences between VS and Emacs
for me are: Emacs is not MicroSoft, Windows, Visual, Point&Click,
it's programmable in a real programming language (Emacs Lisp), it
has incorporated the combined experience of over 20 years of Emacs
editing.  It's not trying to compete on flashiness, it's competing
on real-life usability.  This difference in spirit permeates nearly
all design decissions, so it's just a worlds apart experience.

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: rposey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <887p6k$b7ok$1@flash.seas.smu.edu>
"Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> wrote in message
···················@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de...
> Duane Smith <··@spam.com> writes:
>
> To find out various general (and specific) statements of the
> functionality of Emacs, just do a search on c.l.l for articles related
> to Emacs (I've written a couple myself, and most other regular posters
> here have done so, too.) on DejaNews.
>
> Some basic aspects that sum up the differences between VS and Emacs
> for me are: Emacs is not MicroSoft, Windows, Visual, Point&Click,
> it's programmable in a real programming language (Emacs Lisp), it
> has incorporated the combined experience of over 20 years of Emacs
> editing.  It's not trying to compete on flashiness, it's competing
> on real-life usability.  This difference in spirit permeates nearly
> all design decissions, so it's just a worlds apart experience.

Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though
lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot of
work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge.  NONE of the many packages
I have tried seems to work exactly as described, or they leave out some
details.
I will admit that the Visual Studio Editor is not quite as nice as EMACs
with
the proper setup, but it is intergrated much nicer than any setup I have
seen.  The
problem I have is that its such a pain to make any modifications, it needs a
lot more
emunerated lists of options.  I am using EMACs right now with CLISP, and I
still
can't get it to work in a reasonable manner despite the fact the ILISP
package is
supposed to make it easy.  I convinced that at least 80% of the dislike of
Visual
Studio is a really a protest against Microsoft.  I will admit I am going to
like EMACs,
but I would NEVER, ever chose it as a tool for a software group unless I had
a
person to costumize it for job.  Thats not a problem with most commerial
Software.
Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not delivered with a lot of the packages
you
are going to need.

EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the interface
packages so that they would install using a point and click installer
program.

Muddy


>
> Regs, Pierre.
>
> --
> Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest
Keyserver
>   "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is
Microsoft-
>    bashing." [Microsoft memo, see
http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Fernando
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <jqngas0274p7hfoudqsp5nptglf0me6euo@4ax.com>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:15 -0600, "rposey"
<············@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


>Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though
>lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot of
>work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge. 

	Maybe you should give Infodocks a try (at beopen.com).  It's a
preconfigured emacs ide.  I never used it myself, but it seems more
"user friendly".






//-----------------------------------------------
//	Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
//	frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher C Stacy
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <x8lvh3s9x77.fsf@world.std.com>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:15 -0600, rposey  ("rposey") writes:
 rposey> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great 
 rposey> though lacking in depth.

I would suggest that you start by reading the help information that
comes up immediately when you start emacs.  On the fourth line you
will find two items: an on-line interactive tutorial, and a manual.
If you can't figure out how to proceed from there, then you should
probably just stick with Microsoft Visual Studio, and also forget about Lisp.
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A83BA0.6C3B58FC@raytheon.com>
Christopher C Stacy wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:15 -0600, rposey  ("rposey") writes:
>  rposey> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great
>  rposey> though lacking in depth.
> 
> I would suggest that you start by reading the help information that
> comes up immediately when you start emacs.  On the fourth line you
> will find two items: an on-line interactive tutorial, and a manual.
> If you can't figure out how to proceed from there, then you should
> probably just stick with Microsoft Visual Studio, and also forget about Lisp.

I have Read it, if you have used Microsoft Visual Studio help functions 
at all you would find they are much better.  However, a piece of software that
makes a user with good basic knowledge in computers and the task at hand read
a lot of documentation is using a very dated delivery concept. I think its sort
of 
of sad when otherwise rational people let emotions cloud their comments and 
opinion about technical subjects.  As I said, I use EMACS for LISP, but 
wouldn't use it for Windows C/C++ programing.  Since VC++ is the dominate 
platform in the windows environment I doubt that this opinion is fatally 
flawed.  I always find it strange when people become convinced that only 
they know the true way to do something.  Most if not all professional 
programmers have had at least exposure to EMACS, and many don't use it.  
I will admit, if you change languages a lot EMACS has a tremendous advantage 
in that it has support for almost any language.  However, the standard setup 
for windows even with XEMACS lacks in initial polish.  Its the same with 
every freeware program I have ever seen, their basic underlying
function maybe better than the commercial systems, but ease of use suffers.

I will say again that EMACS could be made much, much better by developing 
a standard install method that was point and click like windows.  

Muddy
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <863dqvh5ew.fsf@g.local>
Robert Posey wrote:

> I have Read it, if you have used Microsoft Visual Studio help functions 
> at all you would find they are much better.

I use both every day. What help functions in Visual Studio
are you actually referring to? The ones that describe the
IDE, or the ones that describe the language you're using it
to write programs in?

The documentation that comes with Emacs doesn't include
documentation for C, or Lisp, or FORTRAN, or Smalltalk,
or Python, or [etc]. (Actually, there's some documentation
for *Emacs Lisp*.) Is that what you prefer about Visual
Studio?

>                                                Since VC++ is the dominate 
> platform in the windows environment I doubt that this opinion is fatally 
> flawed.

This strikes me as a curious argument.

> I will say again that EMACS could be made much, much better by developing 
> a standard install method that was point and click like windows.  

Do you mean for installing Emacs itself, or for installing
add-on bits of Emacs -- new modes, and the like?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Christopher C Stacy
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <x8lg0uv4qt8.fsf@world.std.com>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:30:08 -0600, Robert Posey ("Robert") writes:
 Robert> I have Read it, if you have used Microsoft Visual Studio help functions 
 Robert> at all you would find they are much better.  

I have used Visual Studio a lot, and I am familiar with its help
system, and I continue to disagree with you.   However, I am not
interested in your opinion about either MS or Emacs.
I told you how to access the Emacs help functionality,
and as far as I am concerned, that's the end of it.
If you don't like Emacs, please move on to something else.
I am not interested in your opinion of Emacs (or anything else, actually).
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey34sbby8yi.fsf@cley.com>
* Robert Posey wrote:
> However, a piece of software that
> makes a user with good basic knowledge in computers and the task at hand read
> a lot of documentation is using a very dated delivery concept. 

Damn, I had forgotten that this is the post-literate age.

--tim
From: Steve Long
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A9A0D5.E4747642@isomedia.com>
My development environment:

Sun Ultra I (since it's gotta be Unix)
Allegro Common Lisp and Emacs
"Common Lisp - The Language", Guy Steele
"Common Lisp - The Reference", Franz Inc.
"Object-Oriented Common Lisp", Stephen Slade
"Teach Yourself SQL in 24 Hours", Sams
"C++: The Core Language", O'Reilly
"Unix Desk Reference", Peter Dyson

CD Player, ten CDs ranging from Wagner to Pink Floyd to Juno Reactor,
and a good set of head phones.

Tall americano, preferrably from Seattle's Best
Two Diet Cokes (neither shaken nor stirred)

Also, used to keep a collection of helpful AND useless (so I know the
difference)
hints from comp.lang.lisp from past
years (learned a great deal from everyone.)

I have MetroWerks Codewarrior on a Mac for C++ and Java work, but I've
never been as comfortable with the IDE as with the simple command-line
compiler.

sl
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwn1p1plv4.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Steve Long <·········@isomedia.com> writes:

> My development environment:
> 
> Sun Ultra I (since it's gotta be Unix)
> Allegro Common Lisp and Emacs
> "Common Lisp - The Language", Guy Steele
> "Common Lisp - The Reference", Franz Inc.
> "Object-Oriented Common Lisp", Stephen Slade

"OO programming in CL", Sonya Keene  <-- you are missing this one.

> "Teach Yourself SQL in 24 Hours", Sams
> "C++: The Core Language", O'Reilly
> "Unix Desk Reference", Peter Dyson
> 
> CD Player, ten CDs ranging from Wagner to Pink Floyd to Juno Reactor,
> and a good set of head phones.

"Elio e le Storie Tese", The Complete Collection.

> Tall americano, preferrably from Seattle's Best
> Two Diet Cokes (neither shaken nor stirred)

A bottle of Montecorboli made by my friend Vieri somewhere between
Florence and Siena.

> Also, used to keep a collection of helpful AND useless (so I know the
> difference)
> hints from comp.lang.lisp from past
> years (learned a great deal from everyone.)

·······@copernico:~ 51> du -s ~/lang/cl
295728  /users/marcoxa/lang/cl

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ya8lct2w.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> Steve Long <·········@isomedia.com> writes:
> 
> > My development environment:
> > 
> > Sun Ultra I (since it's gotta be Unix)
> > Allegro Common Lisp and Emacs
> > "Common Lisp - The Language", Guy Steele
> > "Common Lisp - The Reference", Franz Inc.

Wot, no HyperSpec?  I can't live Without the HyperSpec and Erik
Naggum's Emacs interface to it (browsed in Emacs via W3)... :)

> > "Object-Oriented Common Lisp", Stephen Slade
> 
> "OO programming in CL", Sonya Keene  <-- you are missing this one.

And "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol", by Gregor Kiczales et al.

Whenever I'm pondering how to design some extensible interface,
looking into the AMOP often suffices to come up with a good design.

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AA7CBD.378D2769@pindar.com>
Marco wrote:

> Steve writes:
> > CD Player, ten CDs ranging from Wagner to Pink Floyd to Juno Reactor,
>
> "Elio e le Storie Tese", The Complete Collection.

Oh, what you young people listen to these days. In my day it was all
`Extreme Noise Terror', `Napalm Death' or `Dr. and the Crippins'. Something
with a beat that you can scream to ;)

:) will
From: Zachary Turner
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <Dlrr4.28335$Cn1.592441@news5.giganews.com>
"William Deakin" <·····@pindar.com> wrote in message
······················@pindar.com...
> Marco wrote:
>
> > Steve writes:
> > > CD Player, ten CDs ranging from Wagner to Pink Floyd to Juno Reactor,
> >
> > "Elio e le Storie Tese", The Complete Collection.
>
> Oh, what you young people listen to these days. In my day it was all
> `Extreme Noise Terror', `Napalm Death' or `Dr. and the Crippins'.
Something
> with a beat that you can scream to ;)
>
> :) will
Hey, you left out Sepultura and Slipknot.  :)

 - Z
From: Daniel Barlow
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <871z6f4m1c.fsf@tninkpad.telent.net>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:

> I will say again that EMACS could be made much, much better by developing 
> a standard install method that was point and click like windows.  

I install emacs about once a year, on average.

I use it every day.

There is a point to be made here about the relative utility of honing
the installation procedure versus, say, a blood pressure interface to
the Gnus adaptive scoring system.

-dan
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159496965766379@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey
| Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not delivered with a lot of the
| packages you are going to need.

  nonono, _you_ are the worst, since you have been delivered with a lot of
  opinions instead of appreciation for the facts you would have needed to
  form them.

| EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the interface
| packages so that they would install using a point and click installer
| program.

  most users would be improved 200% if someone just replaced their concepts
  of what "simplicity" is all about with something approaching intelligence
  in design.

  also, I think children should come with little infrared receptors that
  obeyed the "mute" button on my remote control, so now I'm going to
  complain vociferously to everybody who make children that they should
  improve their children 200% by changing them so the remote control I use
  to shut up TV commercials will work on annoying children, too.

  try M-x customize RET the next time you feel like pointing and clicking.
  if that doesn't help, do something entirely new and different, and RTFM.

  incidentally, there _are_ good IDEs for Common Lisp, too, but I surmise
  that your penchant for complaining out of ignorance will apply yet again,
  so I won't harm the vendors of such IDEs by naming them so you can post
  yet more negative drivel about stuff you don't understand.  figure it out
  for yourself -- you need to get used to figuring things out for yourself.

  and while I'm speaking my mind, the reason intelligent, competent people
  hate Microsoft is that that company alone has produced millions of people
  just like you who have zero clue and an overpowering desire to prove it
  to the entire world.  "make a tool a fool can use, and only a fool will
  use it" has never been truer than of the anti-educational, anti-skill-
  building cruftware that Microsoft has made billions peddling to unwitting
  losers who now think they have a clue about using computers productively
  (which is very different from fooling around with them all day).  they
  don't, and thanks to Microsoft, they never will, unless they let go of
  the myth that Microsoft has made using computers easy to use.  in fact,
  the only thing that Microsoft has made _real_ easy for their users is
  handing over lots and lots of money to Microsoft in exchange for more
  hype to believe in, more vaporware to wait for, and most of all, more
  vehicles for viruses to get scared into bying more software to avoid.

  don't follow up to this article until you have found and tried at least
  three different IDE-based Common Lisp environments and have decided to
  fail to complain about them.  thank you for your cooperation.

#:Erik
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A84147.E4E6A444@raytheon.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> 
> * Robert Posey
> | Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not delivered with a lot of the
> | packages you are going to need.
> 
>   nonono, _you_ are the worst, since you have been delivered with a lot of
>   opinions instead of appreciation for the facts you would have needed to
>   form them.
> 
> | EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the interface
> | packages so that they would install using a point and click installer
> | program.
> 
>

    <Deleted a bunch of meaningless ramble>

>   incidentally, there _are_ good IDEs for Common Lisp, too, but I surmise
>   that your penchant for complaining out of ignorance will apply yet again,
>   so I won't harm the vendors of such IDEs by naming them so you can post
>   yet more negative drivel about stuff you don't understand.  figure it out
>   for yourself -- you need to get used to figuring things out for yourself.

    I have facts that prove you are wrong, but I not telling( Because I don't
    believe them myself, or I am really unwilling to chance a real debate).
    Not that there is any reason for his attitude at all.  

> 
>   and while I'm speaking my mind, the reason intelligent, competent people
>   hate Microsoft is that that company alone has produced millions of people
>   just like you who have zero clue and an overpowering desire to prove it
>   to the entire world.  "make a tool a fool can use, and only a fool will
>   use it" has never been truer than of the anti-educational, anti-skill-
>   building cruftware that Microsoft has made billions peddling to unwitting
>   losers who now think they have a clue about using computers productively
>   (which is very different from fooling around with them all day).  they
>   don't, and thanks to Microsoft, they never will, unless they let go of
>   the myth that Microsoft has made using computers easy to use.  in fact,
>   the only thing that Microsoft has made _real_ easy for their users is
>   handing over lots and lots of money to Microsoft in exchange for more
>   hype to believe in, more vaporware to wait for, and most of all, more
>   vehicles for viruses to get scared into bying more software to avoid.


   You are now my new Newsgroups Closed Mind of Year.  I guess you must feel
   really threaten that more people can use computers without the high 
   initial price.  Technology is not a social club, it should always be
   made as easy to use as possible.  If you really think anyone would doesn't
   want to waste time learning painfully complex tools for every new task
   is a loser, you need to reconsider the task.  If this crazed rant is a 
   result of some deep emotion attachment to EMACS, GET A LIFE.  Why you 
   think ease of use is anti educational, I will never know.  All tools,
   software or not should be designed to aid the user as much as possible
   to do their job.  Any learning curve time that involves the tool is
   wasted time, and should be minimized.  The tool expose information about
  it functions and the basic task in layered way.  That way if you are 
  trying to do a standard task, you don't have to have all the domain 
  knowledge to do it.  Of course this has risks, but it of great benefit
  when doing infrequent tasks.  

> 
>   don't follow up to this article until you have found and tried at least
>   three different IDE-based Common Lisp environments and have decided to
>   fail to complain about them.  thank you for your cooperation.
    
    After this incredible childish response, you would dare to tell me what to
    do.  I have tried Corman, and Harlequin PE and they were okay I guess.
    The very idea I can't comment about the faults that must exist in any
    software is a joke.  First of all I never said there weren't any
    LISP IDE's that were as good as the VS family, I simply asked if there
    were any like it.  Your response is paranoid in the extreme, LISP and
    EMACS aren't a religion so  chill out.  All editors, languages and
    people have flaws and to pretend different makes you look foolish.  
    This is another example of one of the problems in EMACS, LINUX and
    I guess LISP community, the desire to demonize the other side.  Either
    you like doing it MY WAY or you are stupid and part of the Grand
    Microsoft plot to take over the world.  I would also challenge you
    to write a few programs with VC or Visual Basic and see if you don't
    find some advantages.  I will admit if you spend a lot of time customizing
    EMACS it maybe better than VS or any other product.  However, any time
    you write your own software you should like the results better.  I will
    admit you pissed me off, for which I beg forgiveness for lack of emotional
    control.  However, either you are having a bad day, or you have some
    deep hurts you need to deal with.


    In Love and Trust,

     Muddy

    
    

> #:Erik
From: Raymond A. Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87u2jbft4t.fsf@localhost.my.domain>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:

>    made as easy to use as possible.  If you really think anyone would doesn't
>    want to waste time learning painfully complex tools for every new task
>    is a loser, you need to reconsider the task.  If this crazed rant is a 
>    result of some deep emotion attachment to EMACS, GET A LIFE.  Why you 
>    think ease of use is anti educational, I will never know.  All tools,
>    software or not should be designed to aid the user as much as possible
>    to do their job.

	Please consider the difference between a tool that is easy to
use for somebody who only uses it occasionally, and a tool that gets
more powerful the more you use it. I've *never* been able to see the
point in optimising the user interface for non-users, which is exactly
what *every* Microsoft tool I've seen does.

	What's more, it's actually easy to see, in a number of
document formats, whether a particular document has been prepared in a
Microsoft-style application or an application where the emphasis has
been put on correctness and *useful* functionality.

>   Any learning curve time that involves the tool is wasted time, and
>   should be minimized.  The tool expose information about it
>   functions and the basic task in layered way.  That way if you are
>   trying to do a standard task, you don't have to have all the
>   domain knowledge to do it.  Of course this has risks, but it of
>   great benefit when doing infrequent tasks.

	Is this the Windows "consistency" argument? Are you next going
to claim that all tools always use Ctrl-F for doing a
search-operation, and that it's always found in the "Edit" menu? And
that Cut, Copy and Paste are always Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V? I can't
wait...

> >   don't follow up to this article until you have found and tried at least
> >   three different IDE-based Common Lisp environments and have decided to
> >   fail to complain about them.  thank you for your cooperation.
>     
>     After this incredible childish response, you would dare to tell
>     me what to do.  I have tried Corman, and Harlequin PE and they
>     were okay I guess.  The very idea I can't comment about the
>     faults that must exist in any software is a joke.  

	I think the argument is that these tools are not tools for
casual users, and your experience with them, so far, *is* that of a
casual user.

>     First of all I never said there weren't any LISP IDE's that were
>     as good as the VS family, I simply asked if there were any like
>     it.  Your response is paranoid in the extreme, LISP and EMACS
>     aren't a religion so chill out.  All editors, languages and
>     people have flaws and to pretend different makes you look
>     foolish.

	A *big* difference here is that you are claiming to have found
weaknesses with Emacs/Xemacs after a few hours dabbling. Have you
noticed that none of the experienced users make similar complaints?
Further, that people who have used *better* tools *still* complain
about Visual Studio, even after they have used it for a while? Does
this suggest a basic difference?

>     This is another example of one of the problems in EMACS, LINUX
>     and I guess LISP community, the desire to demonize the other
>     side.  Either you like doing it MY WAY or you are stupid and
>     part of the Grand Microsoft plot to take over the world.  I
>     would also challenge you to write a few programs with VC or
>     Visual Basic and see if you don't find some advantages.

	What makes you think that there *are* any advantages with
Visual Studio and Visual Basic? Visual Studio is (possibly) OK for
small, single-person projects by people who haven't been spoilt by
tools that do what they are supposed to do. Visual Basic is a
programming language for people without the skill set normally
required for serious programming, and neither the time nor the
inclination to learn. One possible advantage with the Visual Basic
environment is that you get reasonably short development cycles, but
guess what - the Lisp environments give you *more* of the same. 

>     I will admit if you spend a lot of time customizing EMACS it
>     maybe better than VS or any other product.  However, any time
>     you write your own software you should like the results better.

	Without modifying Emacs at all, it's a better editor for C/C++
files.


-- 
Raymond Wiker, H�yveien 55, 4800 Arendal
+47 370 22965
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87itzq26fo.fsf@foobar.orion.no>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Raymond A. Wiker wrote:
> 
> > 	Please consider the difference between a tool that is easy to
> > use for somebody who only uses it occasionally, and a tool that gets
> > more powerful the more you use it. I've *never* been able to see the
> > point in optimising the user interface for non-users, which is exactly
> > what *every* Microsoft tool I've seen does.
> 
> There's a very obvious point in it. It's non-users who buy
> the software. Users already have it. :-)

        On what sort of criteria do non-users buy software? I cannot
think of any other (valid) reason than that somebody they
trust/respect has recommended it. If they buy a package merely because
they like the illustrations on the box, or because they've played with
it for 5 minutes in a shop, they deserve what they get...

> (This is perhaps unfair. I suspect that most copies of MS's
> development tools are bought by companies for their employees,
> and that the decision to use those tools is taken by people
> who do use them.)

        I agree with the first part, but not the second. There are
*large* corporations where the developers have been switched from Unix
system (or whatever they are comfortable with, and works) to PCs, just
because PC's are good enough for the bean-counters, and they cost
slightly less. No thought is given to the fact that the developers'
productivity and motivation is lowered, and that the PC's require
about an order of a magnitude more in support personnel...

        In this case, the employers deserve what they get.

-- 
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38a9ae98.0@flint.sentex.net>
In article <··············@foobar.orion.no>,
	Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no> writes:
> ...
>         On what sort of criteria do non-users buy software? I cannot
> think of any other (valid) reason than that somebody they
> trust/respect has recommended it. If they buy a package merely because
> they like the illustrations on the box, or because they've played with
> it for 5 minutes in a shop, they deserve what they get...

do you want a cynical or a realistic explanation?

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ael11okq.fsf@foobar.orion.no>
··@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:

> In article <··············@foobar.orion.no>,
> 	Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no> writes:
> > ...
> >         On what sort of criteria do non-users buy software? I cannot
> > think of any other (valid) reason than that somebody they
> > trust/respect has recommended it. If they buy a package merely because
> > they like the illustrations on the box, or because they've played with
> > it for 5 minutes in a shop, they deserve what they get...
> 
> do you want a cynical or a realistic explanation?

        Wouldn't they be the same :-?

        Another factor that I forgot this time round is that of
"document compatibility": people and organisations keep buying (new
versions of) MS Word and Excel simply because they have become almost
universal, and because the "input filters" of competing programs are
not good enough to make sense of Microsoft's underdocumented formats.

-- 
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3putx8jw5.fsf@cley.com>
* Raymond Wiker wrote:

>         Another factor that I forgot this time round is that of
> "document compatibility": people and organisations keep buying (new
> versions of) MS Word and Excel simply because they have become almost
> universal, and because the "input filters" of competing programs are
> not good enough to make sense of Microsoft's underdocumented formats.

This is to understate the problem slightly.  People keep buying *new*
versions of these programs because they are essentially virii.  Each
new version of Word produces documents that old versions will not deal
with correctly.  The format is also closed so it is not possible to
usefully reverse-engineer it.  And people send you stuff in Word which
is important to your business. Therefore you *must* keep upgrading,
*even if Word is more expensive to own than other products*.  Open
document formats can not compete against closed ones without
essentially regulatory help.

Note that the sense in which Word, say, is a virus, is much stronger
and more toxic than the sense that Gabriel claimed Unix was a virus in
the worse-is-better paper.

--tim
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87vh3pcsym.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no> writes:

>         Another factor that I forgot this time round is that of
> "document compatibility": people and organisations keep buying (new
> versions of) MS Word and Excel simply because they have become almost
> universal, and because the "input filters" of competing programs are
> not good enough to make sense of Microsoft's underdocumented formats.

Underdocumented and everchanging:  Even Microsoft's input filters
can't cope with their own formats, much to often, both cross-platform
(i.e. Mac Word <-> WinWord), and cross-version (IIRC Word 97 had
serious trouble with Word 95 imports of non-trivial documents).

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <w67lg5e4rl.fsf@wallace.nextel.no>
····@acm.org (Pierre R. Mai) writes:

> Even Microsoft's input filters can't cope with their own formats

...but's that part of their business model!

-- 
  (espen)
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159558414867232@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
| You are now my new Newsgroups Closed Mind of Year.

  I just knew you were the authority on Closed Minds.

| I guess you must feel really threaten that more people can use computers
| without the high initial price.

  at least your guesses are improving in quality -- now you make them about
  issues on which you at least have relevant personal experience.

| Technology is not a social club, it should always be made as easy to use
| as possible.

  sure.  but not easier, as the genius once said.

| If you really think anyone would doesn't want to waste time learning
| painfully complex tools for every new task is a loser, you need to
| reconsider the task.

  only someone who confuses a particular implementation of an idea with the
  idea itself could say something so utterly devoid of intelligence.

| If this crazed rant is a result of some deep emotion attachment to EMACS,
| GET A LIFE.

  and just what made you think in terms of deep emotional attachment, Robert?

| Any learning curve time that involves the tool is wasted time, and should
| be minimized.

  _very_ good advice.  and it has evidently worked wonders for you.

| After this incredible childish response, you would dare to tell me what
| to do.

  children are supposed to be told what to do, but the stubbornness that
  causes children to do the opposite of what they are told, no matter how
  foolish or stupid, is the very definition of a childish reaction to being
  told what to do.  so why don't you do something to convince me that _I_
  would benefit from talking to like you were an adult?  so far, you have
  respond _solely_ on what _you_ see as childish, and nothing else.  if you
  don't want to be treated as a stupid child, well, do something else.  how
  hard can it be?  (and if it _is_ too hard for you, perhaps that's a clue?)

| The very idea I can't comment about the faults that must exist in any
| software is a joke.

  sure is, but you're the first to make that joke.  I must assume it made
  you laugh to yourself because it's tragically unfunny to anyone else.

| Your response is paranoid in the extreme, LISP and EMACS aren't a
| religion so chill out.

  so just what _are_ you so mortally afraid of, Robert, that this is what
  you consider most helpful to your cause?

| All editors, languages and people have flaws and to pretend different
| makes you look foolish.

  definitiely, but what about you, who actually _think_ people pretend
  something so foolish?
  
| This is another example of one of the problems in EMACS, LINUX and I
| guess LISP community, the desire to demonize the other side.

  and here I was under the impression that we learned this from you, but I
  guess you know the Emacs, Linux and Common Lisp communities better than
  anyone who is actually a member of any of them, and you certainly know
  them far better than you know the community you came from, such that you
  don't for a minute hesitate to extrapolate your expectations from your
  home community to _all_ others without checking or waiting to see that
  what you believe holds for the new and different communities you meet.

| Either you like doing it MY WAY or you are stupid and part of the Grand
| Microsoft plot to take over the world.

  see?  I _knew_ you had "demonize" written all over you.  nobody thinks
  like this, Robert, except morons who actually believe that accusations
  such as that one reflects on anyone but themselves.  but yes, I do think
  you're terribly stupid.  it has nothing to do with doing anything my way
  or not, but rather the insistence that _you_ want things your way or not
  at all.  objects reflected in your PC screen are closer than they appear.

| I would also challenge you to write a few programs with VC or Visual
| Basic and see if you don't find some advantages.

  trust me, I'm so smart I can find _some_ advantages with absolutely
  anything, including killing people, using Perl, starting wars, installing
  Windows on a would-be computer, or even help funding George W. Bush's
  presidential campaign (he's _almost_ as clueless and negative about stuff
  he doesn't grasp as you are), but that also means I'm so smart I can find
  fundamental disadvantages that I don't want to pay for by the few, and by
  now comparatively _irrelevant_ advantages I find.  you see, unlike you,
  smart people weigh costs and benefits, they don't just go for whatever
  has _some_ advantages.

| I will admit if you spend a lot of time customizing EMACS it maybe better
| than VS or any other product.

  now, why would you "admit" that?  how would you know?  what else that you
  know nothing about do you "admit"?  don't flatter yourself by pretending
  to flatter me with superficial agreement to statements the ramifications
  of the contents of which you cannot realize at your level of competence.
  and I'm your Newsgroups Closed Mind of the Year, remember?  as such, I'm
  certainly not open to your admissions of ignorance disguised as groveling.

| I will admit you pissed me off, for which I beg forgiveness for lack of
| emotional control.

  nah, I don't forgive people.  I wait until they stop doing what they beg
  forgiveness for, and shoot them down again if they repeat it, especially
  after they have begged forgiveness for it, because that means they have
  not learned, and not learning when you have the opportunity is the only
  unforgivable sin.  and, _actually_, begging forgiveness is the hallmark
  of someone who is going to repeat the same sin over and over again.

| However, either you are having a bad day, or you have some deep hurts you
| need to deal with.

  sure.  I'll happily yield to your profound expertise in this area, too.

  next time, try to speak _explicitly_ for yourself on psychological
  matters, Robert, since that is what you are _implicitly_ doing, anyway.

  good luck, "Muddy".

#:Erik
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A84AC7.73DAFAA6@fisec.com>
The IDEs of ACL for Windows and LWW would give you a reasonable balance
of GUI-ness and Emacs-ness, the LWW IDE being closer to Emacs.  Just a
simple example: both implementations give you incremental search, which
is not available on MS tools in general.  Although ACL does not use
tooltips the way VB does, you still get to see the formal parameters of
a function on the top of the screen.

Some off-topic nit-picking:

Robert Posey wrote:

> I have facts that prove [Erik is] wrong, but I not telling( Because I
> don't believe them myself, or I am really unwilling to chance a real
> debate).

It must be a weird feeling to have facts proving someone wrong that you
either don't believe yourself or are unwilling to risk a real debate on
:-)  These types of facts are called guesses, beliefs or suspicions.

> Any learning curve time that involves the tool is
> wasted time

Let's separate difficulty due to the inherent complex nature of
something versus difficulty due to incoherent, limitation-ridden and
careless implementation - calling them complexity and complication,
respectively.  You can't do away with _complexity_ without reducing
functionality.  Time spent on _complications_ may seem wasted (depending
on how determined we are to get somewhere), but time spent on
understanding and harnessing _complexity_ is time spent on our long-term
education.

> All editors, languages and people have flaws and to pretend different
> makes you look foolish.

Could you quote anyone claiming that someone or something is flawless?

> This is another example of one of the problems in EMACS, LINUX and
> I guess LISP community, the desire to demonize the other side.

As opposed to the more pragmatical attitude from Microsoft, like "let's
choke off Netscape's air supply".

> you like doing it MY WAY or you are stupid and part of the Grand
> Microsoft plot to take over the world.

I think _even_if_ Microsoft tools were better, some people would have
ethical problems using them.

> I would also challenge you
> to write a few programs with VC or Visual Basic and see if you don't
> find some advantages.

Anyone to volunteer hosting the event so that all of us can follow it
through MS NetMeeting?

Robert
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUIIDE   like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A88500.2BCB77AE@raytheon.com>
Robert Monfera wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > I have facts that prove [Erik is] wrong, but I not telling( Because I
> > don't believe them myself, or I am really unwilling to chance a real
> > debate).
> 
> It must be a weird feeling to have facts proving someone wrong that you
> either don't believe yourself or are unwilling to risk a real debate on
> :-)  These types of facts are called guesses, beliefs or suspicions.
> 

Actually that statement was poking fun at the comment the previous poster had
made.  I was implying the only reason people refuse to state their facts is
because they either don't exist, or they don't really believe them.  I not
sure how you would get usable data to prove an Editor is better than all others.

Assuming neither choice lacked a vital feature, I not sure a proof is possible.

Muddy

> > Any learning curve time that involves the tool is
> > wasted time
>
From: Michael Hudson
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3wvo7ppsf.fsf@atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk>
Warning: Rant ahead!

Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:

> The IDEs of ACL for Windows and LWW would give you a reasonable balance
> of GUI-ness and Emacs-ness, the LWW IDE being closer to Emacs.  Just a
> simple example: both implementations give you incremental search, which
> is not available on MS tools in general.

It's there actually. Hidden, but present. What drives me up the wall
is having to reach for the bloody rodent every other second. Oh, and
that fact that I'm in Visual Studio generally means I'm programming to
the Win32 API (ick!), MFC (arguably worse) or ATL (a little less
grating, but amazingly badly flawed) using C++ (you didn't really want
to deference that pointer did you? Oh well, the defaults don't stop on
all memory violations (!!!!!!!!!!!), so you won't find out ... very
often), and coping with comedy bugs in the compiler (and other things
...) you have no chance of ever seeing fixed.

Just another Windows drop-out (and I haven't even graduated yet!),
Michael

PS: Sorry.
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87emafd0ds.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Michael Hudson <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> > simple example: both implementations give you incremental search, which
> > is not available on MS tools in general.
> 
> It's there actually. Hidden, but present. What drives me up the wall

It is?  Real _incremental_ search (i.e. the equivalent of C-s in Emacs)?
I'm suitably impressed if they have (after 7 years of MS Visual what
not) finally implemented something so "advanced".  I guess incremental
regexp search (C-M-s) is still not included, though?

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwbt5i99yr.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
····@acm.org (Pierre R. Mai) writes:

> Michael Hudson <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > > simple example: both implementations give you incremental search, which
> > > is not available on MS tools in general.
> > 
> > It's there actually. Hidden, but present. What drives me up the wall
> 
> It is?  Real _incremental_ search (i.e. the equivalent of C-s in Emacs)?
> I'm suitably impressed if they have (after 7 years of MS Visual what
> not) finally implemented something so "advanced".  I guess incremental
> regexp search (C-M-s) is still not included, though?

Well.  It has been a design choice in all (IMHO) MS (and
competitor/emulators) software, to "dumb down" the user interface in
order to achieve visually "right" effects in a "fast" way, only to
have the solution bite you back when you need somethign just one iota
more sophisticated.  I.e. "for all problems there is a solution that
is simple, fast and wrong".

My favourite is the "bullet" idea.  Back in the MS Word 3 on the Mac
days, you would define your "itemize" styles yourself and you would
actually customize them correctly.

Now, the casual user hits the bullet button, the promote/demote arrows
and, lo and behold, the item numbering gets messed up.  S/he then
passes the document to you, and you spend a *lot* of time doing and
undoing this numbering and itemizing etc.  And I haven't even started
talking about Figures and (Numbered) Captions (alas, I haven't looked
ad Office 2000, maybe they saw the light).

Gimme LaTeX.

Cheers


-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Harley Davis
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38a99482$0$233@newsreader.alink.net>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote in message
···················@parades.rm.cnr.it...
> Now, the casual user hits the bullet button, the promote/demote arrows
> and, lo and behold, the item numbering gets messed up.  S/he then
> passes the document to you, and you spend a *lot* of time doing and
> undoing this numbering and itemizing etc.  And I haven't even started
> talking about Figures and (Numbered) Captions (alas, I haven't looked
> ad Office 2000, maybe they saw the light).

It got worse.

-- Harley
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwg0uujptj.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
"Harley Davis" <·············@nospam.museprime.com> writes:

> Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> wrote in message
> ···················@parades.rm.cnr.it...
> > Now, the casual user hits the bullet button, the promote/demote arrows
> > and, lo and behold, the item numbering gets messed up.  S/he then
> > passes the document to you, and you spend a *lot* of time doing and
> > undoing this numbering and itemizing etc.  And I haven't even started
> > talking about Figures and (Numbered) Captions (alas, I haven't looked
> > ad Office 2000, maybe they saw the light).
> 
> It got worse.

I feared so. :{

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwwvo86v1i.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
"rposey" <············@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> "Pierre R. Mai" <····@acm.org> wrote in message
> ···················@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de...  > Duane
> Smith <··@spam.com> writes:
> > > To find out various general (and specific) statements of the >
> functionality of Emacs, just do a search on c.l.l for articles
> related > to Emacs (I've written a couple myself, and most other
> regular posters > here have done so, too.) on DejaNews.
> > > Some basic aspects that sum up the differences between VS and
> Emacs > for me are: Emacs is not MicroSoft, Windows, Visual,
> Point&Click, > it's programmable in a real programming language
> (Emacs Lisp), it > has incorporated the combined experience of over
> 20 years of Emacs > editing.  It's not trying to compete on
> flashiness, it's competing > on real-life usability.  This
> difference in spirit permeates nearly > all design decissions, so
> it's just a worlds apart experience.
> 
> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great
> though lacking in depth.

You just pointed out one of the absolutely most unnerving things about
MS help stuff (BTW. StarOffice suffers from similar deficiencies).

> Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot of work(I do
> mean a lot) and special knowledge.

Yes. It requires work (which I usually found to be "real" work, which
made me learn something), but it requires no "special" knowledge
(being knowledge of Lisp languages the cornerstone of computing :) ).

> NONE of the many packages I have tried seems to work exactly as
> described, or they leave out some details.

Have you tried ILISP (shameless plug: http://ilisp.cons.org)?  I am
happy to improve the beast.

> I will admit that the Visual Studio Editor is not quite as nice as
> EMACs with the proper setup,

AFAIK C/C++ mode comes up automatically in the out-of-the-box Emacs.

> but it is intergrated much nicer than
> any setup I have seen.

Integrated with *what*.  On a second (painful) note, is it better
integrated that the 80's Lisp Machine environments? :)

> The problem I have is that its such a pain
> to make any modifications, it needs a lot more emunerated lists of
> options.  I am using EMACs right now with CLISP, and I still can't
> get it to work in a reasonable manner despite the fact the ILISP
> package is supposed to make it easy.

I am listening... what exactly does not work?

> I convinced that at least 80%
> of the dislike of Visual Studio is a really a protest against
> Microsoft.

It does come in to play....  I'd like the MS guys tell me why do you
need a web browser to install (read: install) a C/C++ development tool :)

> I will admit I am going to like EMACs, but I would
> NEVER, ever chose it as a tool for a software group unless I had a
> person to costumize it for job.

The most important support too for a group to work together is a
revision control system (CVS, PRCS, etc etc).  These tools are not present
in the Visual stuff.  There are hooks, but you need to buy and
configure one of these tools to work properly with Visual/*.  Hence
you still need to do configuration work.

> Thats not a problem with most
> commerial Software.  Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not
> delivered with a lot of the packages you are going to need.

Like....  I am writing this message with Emacs. :)

> EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the
> interface packages so that they would install using a point and
> click installer program.

What's wrong with 

$ configure
$ make
$ make install

?

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti =========================================== PARADES,
Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17,
fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26 http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87puu0144j.fsf@foobar.orion.no>
        [ Warning: low on LISP content, high on VS gripes. ]

Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> "rposey" <············@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 
> > Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great
> > though lacking in depth.
> 
> You just pointed out one of the absolutely most unnerving things about
> MS help stuff (BTW. StarOffice suffers from similar deficiencies).

        There's a difference in emphasis here. The MS documentation is
"optimised" for giving superficial information for casual users, while
Emacs gives (mainly) reference-class information for people who
actually *use* Emacs.

> > Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot of work(I do
> > mean a lot) and special knowledge.
> 
> Yes. It requires work (which I usually found to be "real" work, which
> made me learn something), but it requires no "special" knowledge
> (being knowledge of Lisp languages the cornerstone of computing :)).

        Also, it's impossible (in my case, at least) to outgrow Emacs
- if you have a problem that is not already solved for you in Emacs,
you can write your own solution (or get somebody else to do it), and
if it's done right, it will feel as a natural part of Emacs. Contrast
this with Visual Studio: you can't even extend VS' knowledge about how
it should "compile" new file types (e.g, invoke an IDL compiler on
files with a .idl suffix.) When I started using Visual Studio almost
two years back, it was about as painful as if I were to try on clothes
that fit 20 years back.
        
> > NONE of the many packages I have tried seems to work exactly as
> > described, or they leave out some details.
> 
> Have you tried ILISP (shameless plug: http://ilisp.cons.org)?  I am
> happy to improve the beast.

        On a slightly different note: if you use XEmacs, there is a
system for adding/deleting extension packages. 

> > I will admit that the Visual Studio Editor is not quite as nice as
> > EMACs with the proper setup,
> 
> AFAIK C/C++ mode comes up automatically in the out-of-the-box Emacs.

        ... and C/C++-mode in Emacs even understands C/C++ syntax. The
VS editor does not, e.g, try

void fun()
{
    for (int i = 0; i < 5;
         i++) /* this line will not be indented correctly */
        ;     /* ditto */
}

        In this case, the VS editor thinks that the semicolon on the
first line terminates a statement, and indents i++) as the beginning
of a statement.

        
> > but it is intergrated much nicer than
> > any setup I have seen.
> 
> Integrated with *what*.  On a second (painful) note, is it better
> integrated that the 80's Lisp Machine environments? :)

        VS integrated? Hah. The Visual Studio editor gets completely
confused if you try to get it to indent code inserted by the GUI
designer. This is partly because the people who "designed" the GUI
macros (e.g, for message passing etc) decided to break common-sense
guidelines for how to write macros.

> > I convinced that at least 80%
> > of the dislike of Visual Studio is a really a protest against
> > Microsoft.
> 
> It does come in to play....  I'd like the MS guys tell me why do you
> need a web browser to install (read: install) a C/C++ development tool :)

        *I'm* convinced that the only people who actually like Visual
Studio have never used more powerful tools.
        
> > I will admit I am going to like EMACs, but I would
> > NEVER, ever chose it as a tool for a software group unless I had a
> > person to costumize it for job.
> 
> The most important support too for a group to work together is a
> revision control system (CVS, PRCS, etc etc).  These tools are not present
> in the Visual stuff.  There are hooks, but you need to buy and
> configure one of these tools to work properly with Visual/*.  Hence
> you still need to do configuration work.

        Microsoft *has* a revision control system that comes with
Visual Studio. It's called SourceSafe, but is commonly known as
SourceUnsafe, because it has... weaknesses ;-)

        Anyway, you still need to do configuration work on Visual
Studio. For instance, it is set up, *as default*, with tab size = 4,
and to compress whitespace as a number of tabs. This is *evil* and
needs to be changed before you start using Visual Studio.

> > Thats not a problem with most
> > commerial Software.  Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not
> > delivered with a lot of the packages you are going to need.
> 
> Like....  I am writing this message with Emacs. :)
> 
> > EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the
> > interface packages so that they would install using a point and
> > click installer program.
> 
> What's wrong with 
> 
> $ configure
> $ make
> $ make install

        See my earlier comment about installing extension packages in
XEmacs. BTW: the ilisp "package" for XEmacs is somewhat old - I guess
the XEmacs package admins need to be told about the new version...

-- 
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwn1p4ni5z.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no> writes:

>         [ Warning: low on LISP content, high on VS gripes. ]
> 
> Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:
> 
> > "rposey" <············@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great
> > > though lacking in depth.
> > 
> > You just pointed out one of the absolutely most unnerving things about
> > MS help stuff (BTW. StarOffice suffers from similar deficiencies).
> 
>         There's a difference in emphasis here. The MS documentation is
> "optimised" for giving superficial information for casual users, while
> Emacs gives (mainly) reference-class information for people who
> actually *use* Emacs.

I want both.  I agree that Emacs could use more of the first form, but
having only that is IMHO worse.

	...

>         *I'm* convinced that the only people who actually like Visual
> Studio have never used more powerful tools.

Like Emacs :)

> > The most important support too for a group to work together is a
> > revision control system (CVS, PRCS, etc etc).  These tools are not present
> > in the Visual stuff.  There are hooks, but you need to buy and
> > configure one of these tools to work properly with Visual/*.  Hence
> > you still need to do configuration work.
> 
>         Microsoft *has* a revision control system that comes with
> Visual Studio. It's called SourceSafe, but is commonly known as
> SourceUnsafe, because it has... weaknesses ;-)

I suppose you hve to get the top-of-the line VC/C++ package to see
it.  One *huge* project I know of, uses ClearCase.

>         Anyway, you still need to do configuration work on Visual
> Studio. For instance, it is set up, *as default*, with tab size = 4,
> and to compress whitespace as a number of tabs. This is *evil* and
> needs to be changed before you start using Visual Studio.
> 
	...
> 
>         See my earlier comment about installing extension packages in
> XEmacs. BTW: the ilisp "package" for XEmacs is somewhat old - I guess
> the XEmacs package admins need to be told about the new version...

The latest released version is 5.9.4 (soon to be 5.9.5), which can be
found at http://ilisp.cons.org.  I guess I will have to find out who
the XEmacs people are.

(PS. Apologies.  mail list subscriptions for ILISP are still broken).

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Stig E. Sandø
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87bt5kjez5.fsf@palomba.bananos.org>
"rposey" <············@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the interface
> packages so that they would install using a point and click installer
> program.

I had to to use Windows a couple of days and if I am not completely
wrong, Emacs had a clicky-click installer thing.  The more Un*x-like
install:

$ ./configure --prefix=/where/you/want/emacs
$ make
$ make install

can hardly be called complex either.  And if you use any decent
GNU/Linux-distribution it is also a clicky-click install (Redhat,
Debian, etc). 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe     ····@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Emacs for Dummies (was: Are there any LISP development systems that are  VC, or other GUI IDE  like?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A7E057.F8C9CDF5@iname.com>
rposey wrote:

> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though

ctrl-x ctl-s
ctrl-x ctl-v
ctrl-x 5 f
ctrl-k
ctrl-y
ctrl-w
ctlr-s
tab
meta-<
meta->
ctrl-g
M-x query-replace
ctrl-x ctrl-c

For Lisp:
meta-ctrl-q
meta-.
[plus basic things like eval expr, eval reqion, insert breakpoint (Talk,
HA!),..]

If your're brave:

M-x query-replace-regexp

[I'm a (X)Emacs dummy! And I don't want any other editor!]

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Emacs for Dummies (was: Are there any LISP development systems that  are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A80644.7CDC40FB@iname.com>
I forgot:

ctrl-]
M-x apropos
M-x replace-string

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
From: Friedrich Dominicus
Subject: Re: Emacs for Dummies (was: Are there any LISP development systems that  are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A83C5E.9C753B6B@inka.de>
Fernando D. Mato Mira wrote:
> 
> I forgot:
> 
> ctrl-]
> M-x apropos

you can get help more simply by just
C-h (a b c .....) ;-)

Regards
Friedrich
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Emacs for Dummies (was: Are there any LISP development systems that  	 are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?)
Date: 
Message-ID: <87hffbd3lr.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Friedrich Dominicus <···················@inka.de> writes:

> Fernando D. Mato Mira wrote:
> > 
> > I forgot:
> > 
> > ctrl-]
> > M-x apropos
> 
> you can get help more simply by just
> C-h (a b c .....) ;-)

[Warning: spoof of an "argument" by a recent poster in this thread
ahead]

And, as Emacs is likely to tell you, using C-h ? to get help on all
the ways you can get help using C-h ;)  And this is even explained on
the splash screen.  Compare that to Visual Studio, where you'll have
to learn how to operate Menus, find F1 (which is arguably less
mnemonic than C-h for help ;), etc. all by yourself.  What do you mean 
everyone knows how to operate menus?  So Windows is a club for the
initiated only?  So Emacs is much more usable than Visual Studio...

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3emagxcqu.fsf@cley.com>
* rposey  wrote:
> EMACS would be improved 200% if someone would just modify the interface
> packages so that they would install using a point and click installer
> program.

XEmacs has this (Options / Manage Packages), FSF Emacs may well have.

I think that most of the Emacs problem you are describing is the usual
`I will not go up the learning curve' issue that people have with
basically everything.

--tim
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m23dqwc7c5.fsf@sophia.axel.nom>
"rposey" <············@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great
> though lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it
> requires a lot of work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge.  NONE
> of the many packages I have tried seems to work exactly as
> described, or they leave out some details.

for basic emacs usage, i found the o'reilly emacs book helpful.
sometimes there's no beating dead trees.  (you can also print out the
texinfo pages.)

also, people complain about emacs using lisp as an extension language.
if you don't know lisp at all, this could be a problem.  this
shouldn't, however, be trouble for you since you know (or are
learning) lisp.  my only complaint is that emacs lisp isn't common
lisp, but i guess you can't always have everything.

-- 
J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <BjeoOIs42bQQxFMh+dnJ9pwGYvki@4ax.com>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:23:15 -0600, "rposey"
<············@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though
> lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot of
> work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge.  NONE of the many packages

Did you bother to check the--free--Emacs Lisp tutorial or the programming
book published by O'Reilly?


> I have tried seems to work exactly as described, or they leave out some
> details.

The fact that a package leaves out some details may depend on your frame of
reference.


> emunerated lists of options.  I am using EMACs right now with CLISP, and I
> still
> can't get it to work in a reasonable manner despite the fact the ILISP
> package is
> supposed to make it easy. 

ILISP is actively maintained (i.e. Marco Antoniotti is putting together new
releases like a rabbit :) and several users, including the CLISP authors,
provide valuable feedback for improving the way it works with ILISP. If you
have suggestions or you have found unknown bugs, let the maintainers know
about them.


> I convinced that at least 80% of the dislike of
> Visual
> Studio is a really a protest against Microsoft.  I will admit I am going to

I suspect the other 20% of the dislike is a protest against C++.


> Actual EMACS is the worst, since it not delivered with a lot of the packages
> you
> are going to need.

Since a typical Emacs distribution is so small, and it does so few things
out of the box, it may be a good idea to deliver it with a lot of new
packages :) I simply can't understand why that funny Emacs icon looks like
a kitchen sink...


Paolo
-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lw900m99p9.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:

> ILISP is actively maintained (i.e. Marco Antoniotti is putting together new
> releases like a rabbit :)

It takes at least two rabbits.  There are many :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Jason Trenouth
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <4xupOH8XCVTMp9zUwkE6E8QoL7V7@4ax.com>
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:17:28 +0100, Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote:

> I simply can't understand why that funny Emacs icon looks like
> a kitchen sink...

A new icon (on NT Emacs 20.x at least) has replaced the kitchen sink. We stared
cross-eyed at it for a long time, imagining it to be anything from a
thunderstorm to a mushroom, before someone told us it was a Gnu's face.

__Jason
From: Harley Davis
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38a8562a$0$238@newsreader.alink.net>
rposey <············@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
··················@flash.seas.smu.edu...
> Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though
> lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot
of
> work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge.  NONE of the many packages
> I have tried seems to work exactly as described, or they leave out some
details.

Among the rhetoric from die-hard Emacs fans and the half-literate whining
from the VS fans, there are some valid points to be made.

In particular, despite being a Emacs man myself, I do have to admit that
going up the learning curve with Emacs is harder than climbing the VS
learning curve.   Naturally, the view from the top with Emacs is much
better.

But I believe there is a social dimension to all this:  Most (maybe all)
Emacs users that I know come from academic or industrial research
environments, working on either Lisp Machines or Unix or both, where there
was an extensive support community who maintained the tool and its
environment and mentored new users into the spirit of the community.  I
would imagine it is very rare for a new user to come upon Emacs and develop
expertise and fondness for it sui generis - there is a lack of introductory
material and, more importantly, motivational examples of wizardly people
maximizing their productivity using this tool that at first glance seems
formidable indeed.

And I would think that this feeling is even more pronounced when the new
Emacs user comes from the Windows world, where the development tools have
traditionally been shoddy, and where, compared to its predecessors, Visual
Studio seems like a Great Leap Forward and a marvel of beauty, flexibility
and extensibility, while Emacs seems like a taciturn, barren cliff, loathe
to reveal its secrets to the newcomer.

-- Harley
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A87A0E.55C4D996@raytheon.com>
Harley Davis wrote:
> 
> rposey <············@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> ··················@flash.seas.smu.edu...
> > Emacs documentation at best cryptic, while Visual Studio is great though
> > lacking in depth.  Emacs maybe able to do anything, but it requires a lot
> of
> > work(I do mean a lot) and special knowledge.  NONE of the many packages
> > I have tried seems to work exactly as described, or they leave out some
> details.
> 
> Among the rhetoric from die-hard Emacs fans and the half-literate whining
> from the VS fans, there are some valid points to be made.

I wouldn't consider my argument half-literate, whining perhaps but 
literate whining.  My major problem is that I have to use EMACS for weeks
at a time.  This means I am always in the steep part of the curve.  In the
Embedded World you often don't have much of a choice on tools, so using
it all the time isn't a good option.  

> 
> In particular, despite being a Emacs man myself, I do have to admit that
> going up the learning curve with Emacs is harder than climbing the VS
> learning curve.   Naturally, the view from the top with Emacs is much
> better.
>
See above.
 
> But I believe there is a social dimension to all this:  Most (maybe all)
> Emacs users that I know come from academic or industrial research
> environments, working on either Lisp Machines or Unix or both, where there
> was an extensive support community who maintained the tool and its
> environment and mentored new users into the spirit of the community.  I
> would imagine it is very rare for a new user to come upon Emacs and develop
> expertise and fondness for it sui generis - there is a lack of introductory
> material and, more importantly, motivational examples of wizardly people
> maximizing their productivity using this tool that at first glance seems
> formidable indeed.

That is my case indeed, which is why I stated I would never choose it for
a development team tool UNLESS I had the mentors to setup and explain the
common interface.  This problem could be relatively easily fixed by use
of installation routines, if the community wanted to.  In the business world
tools that require a long period to learn add a lot to cost.  Out of the Box
usability is very important.  

> 
> And I would think that this feeling is even more pronounced when the new
> Emacs user comes from the Windows world, where the development tools have
> traditionally been shoddy, and where, compared to its predecessors, Visual
> Studio seems like a Great Leap Forward and a marvel of beauty, flexibility
> and extensibility, while Emacs seems like a taciturn, barren cliff, loathe
> to reveal its secrets to the newcomer.
>
Exactly, one of the key problem is again the lack of refined setups.  Without
mentors, a lot of people see EMACS as a painful tool that is hard to use.  
Sure you hear claims that it is capable of great things, but often very hard
to believe when you can't even exit the program. Even I will admit the 
ELISP system gives the best error messages I have seen in a LISP system.  Its
a good example of what should be the norm for EMACS.  Another problem is the
documentation is written from an Unix prospective, this means you are constantly
translating to windows terms.  Its by no means a show stopper, but its a
constant
problem.  I think the real reason some people come to hate EMACS is that they
encounter it most often when they are learning a new language, and thus the
two learning curves are multiplied.  I have decided to learn EMACS in detail,
but I do plan to add Installation programs as soon as I know how.

Muddy

 
> -- Harley
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <877lg7v1bh.fsf@kapi.internal>
>>>>> "RP" == Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:
    RP> [...]  This means I am always in the
    RP> steep part of the curve.  In the Embedded World you often
    RP> don't have much of a choice on tools, so using it all the time
    RP> isn't a good option.

Unless you have the kind of embedded project you can use Linux or at 
least a Unix based environment for.  Those do exist and I suspect 
will become more common above the PIC level.

[...]
    RP> That is my case indeed, which is why I stated I would never
    RP> choose it for a development team tool UNLESS I had the mentors
    RP> to setup and explain the common interface.  This problem could
    RP> be relatively easily fixed by use of installation routines, if
    RP> the community wanted to.  

I don't think this is true.  The problems you are outlining are not
really installation problems.  Even if the set-up was properly
installed people whose development experience have been limited to
visual-mumble will need to overcome the culture shock.  So yes, even
though you could make the initial install point and click (and it is
if you are using a Linux distribution and maybe emacs under
windows[??]), I don't think it will help you as much as you seem to 
think.

    RP> In the business world tools that
    RP> require a long period to learn add a lot to cost.  Out of the
    RP> Box usability is very important.

Yes, I do wonder though if the cost of crippling people is higher in
the long term.  The difference seems to be between getting something
working in a day and getting something working _and_ learning a tool
-- one that works well and will _not_ change gratuitously -- in maybe
a few days more.  I think the latter is cheaper if you have the right
kind of people.

As MA pointed out it is ridiculous for VS to require you to install IE
(I am not kidding, the installation program tells you that if don't
install IE you won't get documentation or possibly a usable install).
There has to be a cost associated with accomodating the dual agenda
that this particular vendor has.  I am being generous by saying dual
here.  What will they do to you tomorrow?  Is all this extra change
free to businesses?

I certainly feel like putting my fist thru the screen a few times
when the client requires development with MS -- do you think I don't
charge for this extra aggravation?  So I know at least some businesses
are paying for it.

    RP> [...]  Another problem is the documentation is written
    RP> from an Unix prospective, this means you are constantly
    RP> translating to windows terms.  Its by no means a show stopper,
    RP> but its a constant problem.  [...]

What I don't understand is _how_ all these people ended up building
extensive experience with Windows.  It has only been half-way stable
since NT and that has only been around in the 4.0 incarnation since 96
or so.  Did CS departments immediately jump to using Windows in 96 for
course work?  Where did these people initially learn their profession?
Or are we talking about self-taught people and people who completed IT
programs where they did not get exposed much to Unix but used stuff
like 4GLs and such.  It is amazing to me that there can be so many
programmers/engineers etc. w/o any non-Windows experience.  Windows
has not been around for _that_ long!

[another post that prolly does not belong in cll by]

BM
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87ln4meeib.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:

> That is my case indeed, which is why I stated I would never choose it for
> a development team tool UNLESS I had the mentors to setup and explain the
> common interface.  This problem could be relatively easily fixed by use
> of installation routines, if the community wanted to.  In the business world
> tools that require a long period to learn add a lot to cost.  Out of the Box
> usability is very important.  

Look, you keep repeating this mantra time and time again, but it is
wrong!

Out of the Box usability is very important in cases were the indented
audience are fleeting users only, i.e. ATMs, much end-user software
for non-professionals, etc.  If you only use the tools some small
amount of time x in every week/month, and the time to learn the tool
enough to be able to accomplish simple tasks is y >> x, then yes, this
costs you dearly, and is clearly a very sub-optimal situation.

But extrapolating from this to all software, all tools and the whole
business world is just totally brain-damaged.

I'm currently part of the business world that supplies tools (in this
case simulation software) to other parts of the business world.  The
tools we provide usually take a non-trivial time to learn, to even do
trivial things with them.  Part of this time is needed because the
issue at hand (modelling) is non-trivial, and other parts of the
process are caused by the fact that the software is not optimized
towards out of the box useability, but rather for operational use in
every day business decissions by people who know (and need and want to 
know) what they are doing.

We also offer out-of-the-box solutions, but those are much less
flexible, convenient and powerful in the long run, and therefore
provide much less leverage.  There is also only one reason why they
are useable out-of-the-box:  Because we make decissions for our
customers.  This has advantages (out-of-the-box useability, no
only very limited understanding necessary), but also quite a number of 
disadvantages (higher cost, less flexibility, no knowledge build-up in 
the customer's organization, less leverage).

So does the long time to learn to use our tools proficiently add
significantly to the customer's cost?  Yes.  Does the power that is
gained by the user add significant value to the bottom-line?  You
bet.  When you are talking about savings on the order of several
million simulation project,  you can let one person learn a very long
time (years) before the cost becomes significant.  And this doesn't
take into account raised earning potential and customer satisfaction
because of increased flexiblity, and higher reliability in your
commitments.

Oh and BTW:  None of the learning cost could be significantly lowered
by better _installation_ tools either for Emacs or for our products.
Have you really tried either XEmacs or BeOpen's InfoDock?  Or maybe
you are confused as to what constitutes installation of a product?

> Sure you hear claims that it is capable of great things, but often very hard
> to believe when you can't even exit the program. Even I will admit the 

How dumb would a user (we are talking about a professional programmer
in this case) have to be, to fail to (the following is based on
XEmacs, but similar things will apply to FSF Emacs and BeOpen's
Infodock):

a) Read the splash (startup) screen, which tells him exactly how to
   leave Emacs:

<quote>
XEmacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; type C-h C-w for full details.
You may give out copies of XEmacs; type M-x describe-copying to see the conditions.
Type C-h C-d for information on getting the latest version.

Type f1 or use the Help menu to get help.
Type C-x u to undo changes  (`C-' means use the Control key).
To get out of XEmacs, type C-x C-c.
Type C-h t for a tutorial on using XEmacs.
Type C-h i to enter Info, which you can use to read online documentation.
For tips and answers to frequently asked questions, see the XEmacs FAQ.
(It's on the Help menu, or type C-h F [a capital F!].)
</quote>

b) Use the menus (a skill that your average Windows user should be up
   to), and find the Exit XEmacs menu item in the File (i.e. first)
   menu, just where you would expect it under all other Windows
   applications,

or

c) Find the Help menu (again just where it is in Windows apps), and
   find all the useful help items (such things as "Basics"), which
   will not only explain to him how to leave XEmacs, but how to use it 
   as well.

I'm sorry, but if leaving Emacs presents a problem to you (nowadays,
not in the 1980s), then you should most definitely not be programming, 
or doing anything else that requires some amount of mental acuity.

> ELISP system gives the best error messages I have seen in a LISP
> system.  Its a good example of what should be the norm for EMACS.

???? ELisp is the norm for FSF and X Emacs.

> Another problem is the documentation is written from an Unix
> prospective, this means you are constantly translating to windows
> terms.  Its by no means a show stopper, but its a constant problem.

a) Emacs documentation isn't really written from a purely Unix
   perspective.  It's written more from an Emacs perspective
   (e.g. compare frame vs. window in Emacs vs. X11).  All Emacs terms
   are defined within the documentation.

b) Well, the Visual Studio documentation is written from a purely
   Windows perspective.  Why is this no problem?

> I think the real reason some people come to hate EMACS is that they
> encounter it most often when they are learning a new language, and
> thus the two learning curves are multiplied.  I have decided to
> learn EMACS in detail, but I do plan to add Installation programs as
> soon as I know how.

I'm still not sure what you mean by installation programs:

a) A InstallShield-like program that installs Emacs itself?

   I don't see how this is going to buy you much in terms of
   useability, when compared to the point&click installation of the
   ZIP archive that my XEmacs for Windows came in.

b) Installation tools for add-on packages?

   XEmacs 21.* already comes with those.  They work point&click, even
   automagically (e.g. automatic download of AucTex mode when you
   first visit a *.tex file) and network-transparently.  What more do
   you need?

c) Something else entirely?

   If you want "better" pre-configured settings, try BeOpen's Infodock 
   (in essence a well-packaged XEmacs with many flashy default
   settings).

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AA067B.C130E7EB@fisec.com>
"Pierre R. Mai" wrote:

> a) A InstallShield-like program that installs Emacs itself?

Incidentally, I once have found a XEmacs distribution that used
InstallShield or its kin.

> b) Installation tools for add-on packages?
>
>    XEmacs 21.* already comes with those.  They work point&click, even
>    automagically (e.g. automatic download of AucTex mode when you
>    first visit a *.tex file) and network-transparently.  What more do
>    you need?

People completely new to Emacs may not know much about TeX, either - let
alone about the way of installation via just going through the *.tex
file.  Also, although network-transparency does work on Windows, usually
Emacs and XEmacs freezes or won't exit properly when used.  On Linux,
the Windows softmodems won't work (on Windows, they do, making the
machine 10-20% slower).  There are indeed some annoyances because of
these silly reasons mostly occurring when someone is transitioning from
Windows.

> c) Something else entirely?
>
> If you want "better" pre-configured settings, try BeOpen's Infodock

AFAIK it doesn't work with Windows :-)  Maybe the OP should just change
to Linux?  (It was news to me anyway that Windows is being used for
embedded development.)

Robert
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI 	IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87og9hny8r.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:

> > b) Installation tools for add-on packages?
> >
> >    XEmacs 21.* already comes with those.  They work point&click, even
> >    automagically (e.g. automatic download of AucTex mode when you
> >    first visit a *.tex file) and network-transparently.  What more do
> >    you need?
> 
> People completely new to Emacs may not know much about TeX, either - let
> alone about the way of installation via just going through the *.tex
> file.  Also, although network-transparency does work on Windows, usually

Well, AFAIK the automagic installation is not particular to AucTeX and 
*.tex files, but rather a part of the package management system:  At
least on my old 21.* beta for Windows, when I visit a file for which
the system knows that a major mode exists that is not installed, then
it offers to download it (IIRC).  I just picked tex as an example
since that's where I found out about this feature.

I generally don't like this kind of automagic, but others do...

One way or another you can just as well go to Options/Manage Packages/ 
List&Install and do the selection and installing "manually", point and 
click style, also from your local hard-drive.  This is all described
in Options/Manage Packages/Help...

> Emacs and XEmacs freezes or won't exit properly when used.  On Linux,
> the Windows softmodems won't work (on Windows, they do, making the
> machine 10-20% slower).  There are indeed some annoyances because of
> these silly reasons mostly occurring when someone is transitioning from
> Windows.

Yes, all things Windows should be avoided where possible, or strange
things will happen (not only w.r.t. Emacs).  Sadly it is the casual
users that get hit by this, and they can't do anything about it.

> > If you want "better" pre-configured settings, try BeOpen's Infodock
> 
> AFAIK it doesn't work with Windows :-)  Maybe the OP should just change
> to Linux?  (It was news to me anyway that Windows is being used for
> embedded development.)

Yes, you are right, I remembered incorrectly:  Only the OO-Browser is
available in precompiled format for Win32.  Sorry for that.  OTOH it
should probably pose no problem to contract with BeOpen for support on 
Windows...

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87itzqee52.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Robert Posey wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't consider my argument half-literate, whining perhaps but 
> > literate whining.  My major problem is that I have to use EMACS for weeks
> > at a time.  This means I am always in the steep part of the curve.  In the
> > Embedded World you often don't have much of a choice on tools, so using
> > it all the time isn't a good option.  
> 
> The only embedded-systems person whose toolset I know much
> about uses Emacs all the time. What about embedded systems
> makes you any less likely to be able to choose what editor
> you use?

Note also that since many years many people are choosing the GNU
tool-chain in the version distributed and supported by Cygnus.
This practically includes Emacs by default.  And since Cygnus has
built it's riches (with exponential growth for most parts of the
last decade) on this product/business model, I'd wager that at
least a significant part of the embedded-systems "Business World"
sees things differently from their self-appointed speaker, Robert
Posey.

I'm not sure on this one, but someone pointed out to me that Cygnus is 
the biggest _independent_ tool vendor for the embedded market (Cygnus
is now part of Red Hat, IIRC).

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A978F2.A4F5C32C@raytheon.com>
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey wrote:
>
> Only to people who are short-sighted and fixated on immediate
> profit rather than long-term success.
> 
> Many things that are worthwhile take time to learn. Emacs
> is one. So is every programming language that's worthwhile.
> So is every operating system (and if you think Windows is
> an exception, think again. You've just forgotten learning).
> 
> Emacs could be made to have an easier learning curve. I hope
> it will be. I'm not saying that ease of use doesn't matter.
> But I *am* saying that if you really think that everything
> you use has to be easy to use out of the box, then you deserve
> to fail and probably will. I don't actually believe that you
> think that, because clearly you know at least one programming
> language and are learning at least one other. So I don't
> understand why you say it.
> 
I am a systems/embedded Test Engineer so while I haven't spent
more than 5% of my totally time programing I "Know" several
ASM's, C, C++, Visual Basic, and I am learning LISP and JAVA.  I
have also used Fortran, Ada and Pascal so I am used to learning 
curves.  My problem is that if a tool has a very high learning curve
to do anything it is a much more painful experience to learn it 
well.  If you switch between systems all the time, that becomes
a major drag.  I would whole heartily agree with your statements 
that it is certainly better use the best system except that with
high turn-over and short cycle times it becomes a major pain.  For
people who don't write software most of the time, the MS VS type
tools give them an easier startup time.  Since they aren't writing
major applications(hopefully), the issues of it being good software
involve algorithm issues and not sw arch.  I will admit that if
you program everyday in a semi stable environment that a highly
customizable editor like EMACS is the best choice.  I will even
admit that EMACS is one of the best free ones, and the widespread
extension availability make it the best choice.  

In a windows environment Visual C does have some advantages with
the ease of using MS various libraries, but I could easily see
using EMACS to write the code and then transferring to VC.

Actually of all Microsoft Development products the only one I really
like is Visual Basic.  Not that I like basic, but because it fairly
well integrated into the MS Office products.  This makes it a much
easier to use extendable macro language.  Despite the security problems
VB. is one of the nicest things about MS Office Products.


BTW I am planning to learn EMACS for the reasons stated, I think there
maybe some vary nice commercial products, but while I am in school 
EMACS is the best choice.



> I spend several hours each working day writing code at the moment.
> Suppose the figure is 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, 30 weeks a
> year; that should be a lower bound for anyone whose job involves
> a lot of programming. That means a minimum of 480 hours a year.
> If the Emacs environment takes 20 hours of solid work to get
> used to and makes you 10% more productive, the effort will pay
> for itself in less than 6 months.
> 
> What was that about out-of-the-box usability, again?

See above, my situation is different.  I have to repeat the learning
curve too often.
> 
> --
> Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
> sig under construction
From: Marc Battyani
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <AABC8469BA0C08E4.29D7D909A5F74A04.A7054C0209A74E82@lp.airnews.net>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> wrote in message
······················@raytheon.com...
.../...
> In a windows environment Visual C does have some advantages with
> the ease of using MS various libraries, but I could easily see
> using EMACS to write the code and then transferring to VC.

That's what I do.

I use XEmacs and when I have to do some VC++ I use the VisEmacs extension
that fits in Visual Studio and open the files(on the correct line)  when you
click on the errors/warning messages.

One of the great advantage of using an editor not embedded into a
development tool is that you have only one editor to learn and use to edit
C/C++, VHDL, LISP, Python, Haskell, Java, JavaScript, HTML, IDL, SQL, etc.
And these days you might have to write the user interface in DHTML
JavaScript and Java, device drivers and low level stuff in C/C++, clever
useful and bug free core application stuff in Common Lisp and critical hard
real time stuff in VHDL...

;;; I hope I will have an honorable mention for the buzzword contest of the
day!

>
> BTW I am planning to learn EMACS for the reasons stated, I think there
> maybe some vary nice commercial products, but while I am in school
> EMACS is the best choice.
>

You won't regret it.

Marc Battyani
From: Jonathan Guthrie
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3opb88.g73.ln@206.180.155.28>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
> Robert Posey wrote:

>> I wouldn't consider my argument half-literate, whining perhaps but 
>> literate whining.  My major problem is that I have to use EMACS for weeks
>> at a time.  This means I am always in the steep part of the curve.  In the
>> Embedded World you often don't have much of a choice on tools, so using
>> it all the time isn't a good option.  

> The only embedded-systems person whose toolset I know much
> about uses Emacs all the time. What about embedded systems
> makes you any less likely to be able to choose what editor
> you use?

Well, THIS embedded-systems programmer routinely uses Epsilon (which is
close enough to canonical Emacs so that the differences are somewhat
maddening) and XEmacs and vi.  I don't use Visual Studio for anything as
the I use BATch files for the MS-DOS hosted stuff (and the languages
are typically BASIC and assembly language) and make files on any platform
where I can count on the presence of a decent make.

Back before I got this job and was programming gas flow computers, my
tools were GNU Emacs and make and a C cross-compiler.  The choice of
compiler WAS dictated by the management (with my guidance--the Introl
compiler choked on binaries of the size we were trying to generate)
but I installed GNU Emacs and GNU Make from source.

Come to think of it, I used a recursive subroutine in that job for an
arithmetic expression evaluator, but I had to replace with a state-driven
because the cross-development system didn't have the setjmp/longjmp I
needed to handle errors.  (I wouldn't do error handling the same way
now, but I didn't know what I was doing back then.)
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159635894939621@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
| Sure you hear claims that it is capable of great things, but often very hard
| to believe when you can't even exit the program.

  you know, it is getting harder and harder to believe anything you say
  when you make such silly complaints.  if you took the time to read the
  stuff that is thrown in your face when you start up a default Emacs, if
  not the first time you start it, at least the second time, when you have
  sworn and gritted your teeth over not being able to exit the program the
  first time, most of your silly complaints would simply vanish.

  if I were you, I would be extremely hesitant to expose so much of my way
  of dealing with things in general as you do on this Emacs topic, or,
  worse, so much of your ability to learn from your experience.  it seems
  that if you already know how to do something in some context, any other
  way is so broken that you don't even want to figure out what it would be.
  now, who would want a _programmer_ who thinks like that?

| Another problem is the documentation is written from an Unix prospective,
| this means you are constantly translating to windows terms.

  this could be why I don't understand your basic problems -- they are
  expressed in Windows terms that lose so much precision in their
  translation into tech-speak that they come out as baseless whining.

#:Erik
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AAC4DC.DE8287C4@raytheon.com>
Erik Naggum wrote:
> 
> * Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
> | You have to use the materials and people available to get the job done.
> 
>   this is the core of your attitude, I presume, so I'll let it stand out as
>   something with which I _profoundly_ disagree, in one particular aspect:
>   that such materials and people should not be vastly improved in order to
>   get the job done.  I have always believed that whatever was available to
>   me were no more than _raw_ materials, and that failure to shape the raw
>   materials into something better fit for the tasks at hand was the best
>   way possible _not_ to complete those tasks.  

I agree with you about what should be done, unfortunately I work for very
large company where I am totally unable to affect hiring policies.  The concept
of spending time improving the tools, even something as minor as EMACS
customization
is strongly discouraged.  In fact, given the near zero overhead budgets, it
could even be illegal to use customer money to improve tools.  It certainly
would have to be approved.

> 
>   in particular, a computer does not serve very simple, well-defined needs,
>   and it consequently always needs work to make it do exactly what I want.
> 
>   machines that serve simple, well-defined needs are called "appliances",
>   which is why I call otherwise interesting computer hardware that runs
>   anything Microsoftish "Windows appliances".
> 
> | I guess I made a mistake when I mentioned a Microsoft Product, I always
> | expect technical issues to be debated without strong emotions.
> 
>   good engineers and scientists are the most passionate people I know.
>   moreover, I'm confident that this is a univeral truth: competent people
>   _feel_ strongly about quality.  that's what makes it possible for them to
>   keep quality on top of their list at all times -- if they had to _think_
>   about quality consciously, it would be like using the conscious mind to
>   walk or to drive a car or to make love.

Being passionate is not excuse for lack of ability to make rational arguments,
when people let their emotions control them, they fail to make arguments that
convince people.  I certainly agree that good engineer approach their work
more as an obsession, that a job.  I have never met a good engineer, much
less a great one who wasn't constantly striving to do better.

Actually I am considered somewhat of a fanatic myself, however in the
specification
driven world it is hard to get features included that would actually reduce 
cost.  This is mostly a result of the contract and cost center driven concept
my company works under.  Since each project is largely financially separate,
the project manager never wants to pay for any additional training, or
tool development.  Thus you get a lot of tools that maybe adequate for
the task, but lack the features that would be needed for they to be applicable
to
other projects.  This of course a stupid way to manage a company, but I have
been unable to convert anyone who matters.  The management loves to talk process
but won't spend any money on it.  Of course the management is constantly 
wondering why we don't get more reuse, while refusing to give time and budget
to produce reusable products.  Since every program is measured in isolation,
the fact that it produces code that is hard to maintain, and not reusable is
not properly accounted for.  The software people do make a lot of effort to
do the best they can, but they are too tied to the idea that each software
module should do no more than the actual written requirements.  Their has
been some improvements, but it is still not where it should be.

> 
>   however, it has become clear to me in the past few years that lots of
>   people have no emotions connected to their rational faculties whatsoever
>   -- they simply feel _nothing_ when it comes to anything factual -- which
>   is why you hear them claim that emotions are irrational.  yeah, _their_
>   emotions are irrational.  technical people, however, seem to be able to
>   deal with science and engineering as well as people emotionally, while
>   the "people people" are restricted to deal with people emotionally and
>   cannot fathom that anyone can possibly feel anything about a program.
> 
>   so _I_ guess you have never met a single competent engineer in your life,
>   and now that you do, in this newsgroup, you stick to your belief that
>   those who _feel_ anything about engineering and science must be madmen.

I never mean to say that they shouldn't feel strongly, but that shouldn't blind
them to both sides of an issue.  To become so emotionally attached to a 
EDITOR is a problem.  If any complain about EMACS drives them to attack the 
the commentator, they have lost touch with reality.  EMACS is a fine program,
BUT many people hate EMACS with equal passion.  When you allow your emotion
to so blind to other points of view, your engineering ability has been 
severely compromised.  


> 
>   this also explains why you react so emotionally to Emacs.  it was never
>   made for people like you.  its very existence is probably an affront to
>   your very belief system.
> 
> | EMACS is just a editor, perhaps its the best one, but it is still just an
> | editor.
> 
>   exactly.  you feel _nothing_ about software.  probably sort of like I do
>   towards sports as entertainment.
> 
> | One of the things that does piss people off is extreme over reaction to
> | ANY complain about EMACS.
> 
>   don't flatter yourself.  competent people get pissed off at idiotic
>   complaints about anything, but there are literally millions of complaints
>   about Emacs that have been taken very seriously by its developers and
>   have caused competent people to make changes to Emacs to improve it.
> 
>   you, however, couldn't produce a constructive complaint about Emacs if
>   your life depended on it, so don't pretend to speak for any experience
>   other than serving up some idiotic complaints that truly annoy people.

Yet again a silly comment, since at least one person involved with the creation
of EMACS has agreed with one of my complains.  If you think the widely 
recognized relatively steep initial learning curve of EMACS doesn't exist you
have lost all touch with reality.  I have heard 100's of people complain
about it, and since we are talking about a human factors issue this is
absolute proof.  So unless you have knowledge of well conducted surveys
that disprove this basic point, you are the one making invalid unsupported
statements.  I find it impossible to believe that anyone who has contact with
many people using a version of EMACS that has not been customer configured
has not heard a lot of complains.  Engineers need to realize, that when you
are talking about human interfaces that how easy there are to use is an
undeniable quality factor.  Is it the only one, of course not.  However,
to assert that none of my arguments are valid, you have to prove that
many people don't have problems with EMACS.  None of my complains ever stated
anything about EMACS being bad, or that people using it were wrong.  I also
never stated that I liked how things were run at my company.  However,
the paranoid of the EMACS Zealots has made them see things that aren't
there.  Like I have said many times, I like XEMACS and plan to learn it
better.  However, if I have time to contribute anything to the package it
will be to make it easier to use.



> 
>   I wonder, sometimes, why people who have demonstrated to have zero clue
>   need to prove it so many times over.  they don't grow clues by denying
>   that clues exist, so why this need to pretend that what they have done
>   was clueful?  "ANY complain[t] about Emacs", for instance, is such an
>   obviously bogus and self-serving exaggeration that it's _ridiculous_.

Read my posting again, and see if I ever said anything to justify the reactions
people made.
> 
> | I for one find that people that can't handle criticism about their badly
> | often have the most doubts about their own point of view.
> 
>   is that why you can't handle criticism of your reactions here?
> 
>   by the way, wishful thinking like "there's something wrong with those who
>   hate me" is a very useful psychological defense mechanism for those who
>   are mentally unprepared to accept that other people aren't hateful to
>   begin with and don't react without reason or observable cause.  it is
>   fairly interesting to watch people respond to criticism as if criticism
>   of _them_ has to come from psychopaths, while they are eminently able to
>   criticize just about anything, usually without justifiable reasons.

If any of you hate me for my comments you need serious help.  I certainly
don't even dislike anyone in this conversation.  I personally believe that
hating anyone is a serious flaw, but this conversation is so far from 
justification for hate that baffles me that you would even mention the
word.  


Deleted more unfounded comments from someone who has serious issues.


In Love and Trust,
Muddy
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159728087248949@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
| I agree with you about what should be done, unfortunately I work for very
| large company where I am totally unable to affect hiring policies.

  what part do you agree with?  I'm talking about _educating_ people that
  have already been hired, because whatever was hired was raw material, and
  education is what shapes them into something the company can use.

| Being passionate is not excuse for lack of ability to make rational
| arguments,

  you extrapolate from unwillingness to treat a bozo like you as an adult
  with _ability_ to make rational arguments.  this is a _fantastically_
  unintelligent extrapolation.

| when people let their emotions control them,

  emotions always control people.  that's their fundamental function.  the
  question is _which_ emotions.  some day you will understand this.

| I never mean to say that they shouldn't feel strongly, but that shouldn't
| blind them to both sides of an issue.

  what does it _take_ to make you understand that you're the one dreaming
  up this utter crap about other people?  I have told you that I can see
  _some_ advantages with _everything_.  _why_ is this something you have to
  keep denying all the time?  nobody here is blinded, except you, perhaps.

| To become so emotionally attached to a EDITOR is a problem.

  you don't understand how emotions work in technically apt people, so now
  it's a "problem".  grrrrreat!  tell you wat, bozo, _nobody_ is _attached_
  to an editor, emotionally or otherwise.  you don't have to be _attached_
  to feel something, you see.  well, perhaps you do, but you're not the
  prototype of all people on earth, now, are you?

| If any complain about EMACS drives them to attack the  the commentator,
| they have lost touch with reality.  EMACS is a fine program, BUT many
| people hate EMACS with equal passion.  When you allow your emotion to so
| blind to other points of view, your engineering ability has been
| severely compromised.

  *sigh*.  if only you could listen to yourself instead of expecting that
  others will listen to you.  _nobody_ suffers from what you would dearly
  hope they suffer from so _you_ could ignore them.  and I mean _nobody_.
  you don't understand jack shit about software and how it affects people
  with a working intelligence _and_ working emotions.  as soon as you
  realize this, you could be worth talking to.  so far, there is no sign
  that your brain is able to accept anything you don't already agree to.

| If you think the widely 
| recognized relatively steep initial learning curve of EMACS doesn't exist you
| have lost all touch with reality.

  are you in really touch with Reality, "Muddy"?  whoever _actually_ thinks
  these things you dream up?  I keep telling you: nobody.  your enemies are
  figments of your not very well developed imagination.

| However, to assert that none of my arguments are valid...

  nobody has asserted any such thing.

| However, the paranoid of the EMACS Zealots has made them see things that
| aren't there.

  _really_?  how about the many demonstrations that you are arguing against
  some really stupid stuff that _nobody_ has actually ever said?

| Read my posting again, and see if I ever said anything to justify the
| reactions people made.

  just _how_ stupid are you, "Muddy"?  do you really think nobody did that
  _before_ they reacted to your incredibly retarded and unfounded opinions?

| >   by the way, wishful thinking like "there's something wrong with those who
| >   hate me" is a very useful psychological defense mechanism for those who
| >   are mentally unprepared to accept that other people aren't hateful to
| >   begin with and don't react without reason or observable cause.  it is
| >   fairly interesting to watch people respond to criticism as if criticism
| >   of _them_ has to come from psychopaths, while they are eminently able to
| >   criticize just about anything, usually without justifiable reasons.
| 
| If any of you hate me for my comments you need serious help.

  I'm _amazed_ by your reading comprehension, "Muddy".  I said "[you] are
  mentally unprepared to accept that other people aren't hateful to begin
  with", and now your response proves just that.

  you're an idiot, Robert Posey.  shut your trap and leave us alone.

#:Erik
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <950744954437@NewsSIEVE.cs.bonn.edu>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...
> * Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
>   you're an idiot, Robert Posey.  shut your trap and leave us alone.
>
> #:Erik


I, for one, believe Robert Posey has every right to post, and I don't share
at all the above sentiments.

Coby
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AB5D03.1EF6EE6@fisec.com>
Unrelated to this thread, I just visited comp.object (which I do every
once in a while).  Among others, there is an easily identifiable loser
who can't stop posting pointless articles and opening debates he
predictably fills with his useless mantra.  Top contributors always
prove him wrong, but he does not change or quit despite the constant
humiliation.  It seems that too much tolerance and laissez-faire freedom
of speach does not work out well on that newsgroup
(->comp.object.moderated), and I prefer self-defence of a newsgroup over
moderation.  c.l.l. is the forum of a community, whose members should
have the right to try to reject noise and open newcomers' eyes to
(possibly shared) values.

It is reasonable to expect Robert to make his comments more carefully
and constructively so that he cannot be accused of repeated, aimless
hostility towards values many people foreseeably believe in.  This is
not to say he brought up points unworthy of discussion.

Robert

Coby Beck wrote:

> I, for one, believe Robert Posey has every right to post, and I don't > share at all the above sentiments.
From: thi
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2rr9ece7yt.fsf@netcom6.netcom.com>
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:

> I, for one, believe Robert Posey has every right to post, and I don't share
> at all the above sentiments.

i only use shared sentiments.

thi
From: Kenneth P. Turvey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn8an7bc.eat.kt-alt@pug1.sprocketshop.com>
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:49:02 -0800, Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
>·····················@naggum.no...
>> * Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
>>   you're an idiot, Robert Posey.  shut your trap and leave us alone.
>>
>> #:Erik
>
>
>I, for one, believe Robert Posey has every right to post, and I don't share
>at all the above sentiments.

Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
really stopped using this group because of his rants...  

-- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com> 
--------------------------------------------
  The world is full of fools and faint hearts; and yet everyone has
  courage enough to bear the misfortunes, and wisdom enough to manage
  the affairs, of his neighbor.  -- Benjamin Franklin
From: Michael Hudson
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3n1p0ndqo.fsf@atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk>
······@SprocketShop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) writes:

> Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
> really stopped using this group because of his rants...  

Well, I would say Erik's rants (though not the personal arguments,
generally) are one of the reasons I do read this newsgroup.

Of course, you ask an impossible question: "raise your arm if you
can't hear me".

Cheers
M.
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <pUTq4.39882$vi4.95751@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com> wrote in message
··························@pug1.sprocketshop.com...
>
> Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
> really stopped using this group because of his rants...
>

I'm beginning to enjoy Erik's rants.  I think it may be an acquired taste,
however.
From: Raymond Wiker
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <8766vn280a.fsf@foobar.orion.no>
"Joe Marshall" <·········@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com> wrote in message
> ··························@pug1.sprocketshop.com...
> >
> > Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
> > really stopped using this group because of his rants...
> >
> 
> I'm beginning to enjoy Erik's rants.  I think it may be an acquired taste,
> however.

        I think it also helps if you're not the target :-)

-- 
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <SiUq4.39903$vi4.95982@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Raymond Wiker <·······@orion.no> wrote in message
···················@foobar.orion.no...
> "Joe Marshall" <·········@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com> wrote in message
> > ··························@pug1.sprocketshop.com...
> > >
> > > Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
> > > really stopped using this group because of his rants...
> > >
> >
> > I'm beginning to enjoy Erik's rants.  I think it may be an acquired
taste,
> > however.
>
>         I think it also helps if you're not the target :-)

Been there, too...
From: Fernando
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nnrnas0sosqsgqrldn4csm62ar4u26u5h9@4ax.com>
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 01:04:12 -0600, ······@SprocketShop.com (Kenneth
P. Turvey) wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:49:02 -0800, Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
>>·····················@naggum.no...
>>> * Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
>>>   you're an idiot, Robert Posey.  shut your trap and leave us alone.
>>>
>>> #:Erik
>>
>>
>>I, for one, believe Robert Posey has every right to post, and I don't share
>>at all the above sentiments.
>
>Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
>really stopped using this group because of his rants...  

	Not many: "kill filing" anoying morons is a common practice.




//-----------------------------------------------
//	Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
//	frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159810718604997@naggum.no>
* Kenneth P. Turvey
| Erik regularly treats people this way.  I wonder how many people have
| really stopped using this group because of his rants...  

  well, since you appear to wonder, the answer is simple: my influence on
  such is much less than the rate of readers who succumb to accidents.

  however, it is a well-known fact that idiots on the Net drive out people
  who have something to contribute, in very large numbers.  I'm but a very
  mild counter-force to that overpowering drive in society to dumb down
  everything by telling people they have "rights" to post their drooling
  idiocy everywhere, and in particular that only those who criticize the
  idiots should have no right to do so.

  I do wonder, however, why it is better to be preoccupied with _people_
  than to be preoccupied with principles and ideas and actions, and why it
  is OK to post inane drivel about people in articles with zero technical
  merit or even contents, but not OK to flame morons _in_ technical areas.
  I wish sometimes that those who have such a dramatic need to discuss _me_
  would at least be "kind" enough to form a fan club or something equally
  disgusting instead of pretending they are caring about anything more
  intelligent than the personal nonsense we see in the National Enquirer.

#:Erik
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <ic_q4.40116$vi4.97691@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.no...

>   I wish sometimes that those who have such a dramatic need to discuss
_me_
>   would at least be "kind" enough to form a fan club or something equally
>   disgusting instead of pretending they are caring about anything more
>   intelligent than the personal nonsense we see in the National Enquirer.

Consider it done.

Anyone want to write a `fanzine'?
From: Ray Blaak
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <m33dqpk5w5.fsf@baka.infomatch.bc.ca>
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
>   it's funny how you guys have to take so vocal parts in what you seem to
>   dislike that I do, and overdo it in so stupid ways, too -- I have yet to
>   see one of you being able to interject any technical contents to your
>   flames about me: they're all about how much you dislike me or what I do;

That's because that is the heart of their problem with you, not technical
issues.

Technically, your points are usually right on the money. It's just that you are
completely intolerant of technical mistakes, especially when people who you
believe are wrong keep arguing with you.

Given that people are fundamentally irrational beings (even techies, with their
emotional passions about excellence), it usually takes a fair bit of patience
to convince them of the error of their ways.

Many people don't have that patience, which is fine. The right thing for them
to do is simply ignore those that have demonstrated their inability to
understand arguments.

Being so quick to call people morons and idiots is usually overkill. There are
many levels of idiocy, and the pain should be measured out accordingly. 

Most people expect a certain amount of civility, even in cases of
disagreement. This is why people have problems with your rants.

>   this all lends credence to the view that you guys can't help yourself,
>   but I most certainly can, and can be blamed for not doing so.  

This does not follow. Usenet is all about arguing and discussion -- gossip,
really. If your ranting style is the current topic, well then so it goes. You
blast away at someone, they talk about it. It's *interesting*.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
·····@infomatch.com                            The Rhythm has my soul.
From: Xah
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <B4D95C58.61EC%xah@xahlee.org>
doctor Erik,

please allow me to tell you that your crime is creating personal expressions
of fair complexity and representing them in a writing style that often
results in very long sentences, which are difficult both for the average and
advanced readers to understand because it takes a lot concentration and
memorization and plus logic skills to parse and absorb them in its totality,
but even with said skills one is not sufficient to appreciate its
significance because its content is also usually abstract and dense, and
also almost always odd and original with the attribution of being extremely
condescending to the average intellect whom have at least the acuity or
instinct to sense your arrogance.  as you know that the philosopher,
logician, social activist, and Nobel laureate in journalism Bertrand Russell
is renowned for his clarity and lucidity in his expositions among other
things said in one of his biography that one of his advise or principle in
writing clearly (i forgot which) is to make sentences as short as possible.
i wonder if you have considered that? (needless to say, i'm sure you have.
the previous question is merely a form of expression used for its side
effects.)  as far as writing goes, last but least i think that some years
ago you started to embrace this shitty and not-currently-orthodox
all-lower-case "no capitalization in the first letter of a sentence" habit
of representation of typed text that added the difficulty of scanning your
outpourings.  i bumped into your defense of it the other day but did not
have time -- as now you know why -- to see what the fuck you are talking
about.

you have a lot of other ranking crimes reeking through geek space that are
just purely offensive to someone who have never read your stuff before
regardless how educated they are, but i do not have time to entail and
demonstrate them in this short letter at the moment.

i do wish that some other time when i have plenty of leisure that we could
sit down and sigh over some of the peculiarities and singularities of life
and universe in general and perhaps i can fix some of your illness in the
writing temperament area so that perhaps you could be more effectual in its
execution.

with dementia,

 Xah
 ···@xahlee.org
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: Stig E. Sandø
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <87vh3fmzve.fsf@palomba.bananos.org>
Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes:

> doctor Erik,

[snip crap]

Go play in traffic Xah, please.  Let us lambda kiddies actually have
this group in peace to discuss Lisp, and go find somewhere else to
spew out your personal problems and pathetic attacks on other people.
Thank you.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe     ····@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Xah
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <B4D9FD94.6217%xah@xahlee.org>
Dear Stig,

Welcome to the Naggum club and you may start to enjoy yourself by kissing my
foot.

(Does Stig mean a castrated female deer, complimenting Stag? Stig Stag, i
like that.)

····@ii.uib.no (Stig E. Sand�) wrote:
> Go play in traffic Xah, please.

if i'm dead, where you gonna get your food for thought?
(i enjoyed your jocularity, though.)

> Let us lambda kiddies actually have
> this group in peace to discuss Lisp,

(Thank you again. I'm so honored by your playfulness and responsiveness.)

Shamefully, i've actually never studied lambda calculus in it's raw
formality. I'm at best a lambda knight whereas quite a lot people here are
lambda bishops and kings and queens.

I do, however, take care of the drudgery of whipping lambda kiddies' asses
at times.

As far as discussing Lisp is concerned, please go ahead. I'm glad that we
don't live in a police state and have the freedom to starve trolling
monsters or creating comp.lang.lisp.moderated. You are not one of those
reflexive and idiotic newbies are you? On the other hand, feel free to
continue staying at this speciously (sic) roomy Naggum club of yours.

> and go find somewhere else to
> spew out your personal problems and pathetic attacks on other people.

Inevitably, i have to point out people's crimes. YOUR crime, is a heinous
crime. If you are not truly stupid, you would know that your insults will
only exacerbate your purported concern. You are especially despicable
because i have just exposed such behaviors by other unwarranted troll crying
people. The real culprit is not your IQ, but rather your sloppy, unthinking
nature. You need to THINK before you DO! (btw, don't feel TOO bad because
the majority of people don't think either.)

> Thank you.

Thank YOU, for giving me another opportunity to rant. (for those quietly
loving me, i'm thankful too. The burst of a bright flame will not linger
forever.)

> Stig Erik Sandoe     ····@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

... oh so this guy is a real _kiddie_. Sigh. Maybe i wasted my breath. Next
time i should check before i write. If kiddie; "fuck off" suffice. At least
he is honest in using the lamba kiddie term. Now you Stig kid listen: take
my words as a lump of gold. If in the future you get a C or become a Perl
script kiddie, i'll stick it up your ass. Now go show some discipline.

 Xah
 ···@xahlee.org
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: Stig E. Sandø
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <874say7ujk.fsf@palomba.bananos.org>
Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes:

> Dear Stig,

> (Does Stig mean a castrated female deer, complimenting Stag? Stig Stag, i
> like that.)

Yes, honey.

[snip ya lousy and trollish attempt at increasing the temperature]

*plonk*

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe     ····@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
From: Johan Kullstam
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2hfeyyyxx.fsf@sophia.axel.nom>
Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes:

> Dear Stig,
> 
> Welcome to the Naggum club and you may start to enjoy yourself by kissing my
> foot.
> 
> (Does Stig mean a castrated female deer, complimenting Stag? Stig Stag, i
> like that.)
> 
> ····@ii.uib.no (Stig E. Sand�) wrote:
> > Go play in traffic Xah, please.
> 
> if i'm dead, where you gonna get your food for thought?
> (i enjoyed your jocularity, though.)
> 
> > Let us lambda kiddies actually have
> > this group in peace to discuss Lisp,
> 
> (Thank you again. I'm so honored by your playfulness and responsiveness.)
> 
> Shamefully, i've actually never studied lambda calculus in it's raw
> formality. I'm at best a lambda knight whereas quite a lot people here are
> lambda bishops and kings and queens.
> 
> I do, however, take care of the drudgery of whipping lambda kiddies' asses
> at times.
> 
> As far as discussing Lisp is concerned, please go ahead. I'm glad that we
> don't live in a police state and have the freedom to starve trolling
> monsters or creating comp.lang.lisp.moderated. You are not one of those
> reflexive and idiotic newbies are you? On the other hand, feel free to
> continue staying at this speciously (sic) roomy Naggum club of yours.
> 
> > and go find somewhere else to
> > spew out your personal problems and pathetic attacks on other people.
> 
> Inevitably, i have to point out people's crimes. YOUR crime, is a heinous
> crime. If you are not truly stupid, you would know that your insults will
> only exacerbate your purported concern. You are especially despicable
> because i have just exposed such behaviors by other unwarranted troll crying
> people. The real culprit is not your IQ, but rather your sloppy, unthinking
> nature. You need to THINK before you DO! (btw, don't feel TOO bad because
> the majority of people don't think either.)
> 
> > Thank you.
> 
> Thank YOU, for giving me another opportunity to rant. (for those quietly
> loving me, i'm thankful too. The burst of a bright flame will not linger
> forever.)
> 
> > Stig Erik Sandoe     ····@ii.uib.no    http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> ... oh so this guy is a real _kiddie_. Sigh. Maybe i wasted my breath. Next
> time i should check before i write. If kiddie; "fuck off" suffice. At least
> he is honest in using the lamba kiddie term. Now you Stig kid listen: take
> my words as a lump of gold. If in the future you get a C or become a Perl
> script kiddie, i'll stick it up your ass. Now go show some
> discipline.

naw, the real juvenile likes to use lots of swear words.

xah lee -- five years old.

-- 
J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
[········@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
From: thi
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2rsnyjbm9r.fsf@netcom15.netcom.com>
xah spews once again
keyboard tickled, programs weep
dissipation, sigh
From: Xah
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <B4DB5FBC.629F%xah@xahlee.org>
thi <···@netcom.com> wrote:
> xah spews once again
> keyboard tickled, programs weep
> dissipation, sigh


with my name in it
elation, exultation
a haiku from thi


thank you, thi.

 Xah
 ···@xahlee.org
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <KZHt4.54559$Cn1.1063262@news5.giganews.com>
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Xah would say:
>doctor Erik,
>
>please allow me to tell you that your crime is creating personal expressions
>of fair complexity and representing them in a writing style that often
>results in very long sentences, which are difficult both for the average and
>advanced readers to understand because it takes a lot concentration and
>memorization and plus logic skills to parse and absorb them in its totality,
>but even with said skills one is not sufficient to appreciate its
>significance because its content is also usually abstract and dense, and
>also almost always odd and original with the attribution of being extremely
>condescending to the average intellect whom have at least the acuity or
>instinct to sense your arrogance.

The use of the term "crime" is as inflammatory as anything of the
things of which you accuse #erik.  

And you are committing precisely the same "crimes" you accuse of in
this very sentence.

>you have a lot of other ranking crimes reeking through geek space
>that are just purely offensive to someone who have never read your
>stuff before regardless how educated they are, but i do not have time
>to entail and demonstrate them in this short letter at the moment.

#erik may behave in a manner that can be looked at as unfriendly; he
nonetheless stays quite directed.  When he bashes on someone, it
happens at a *technical* level, involving a *technical* argument.  

In contrast, your blatherings are unfriendly, but utterly irrelevant
to the technical discussions of comp.lang.lisp.

(plonk 'xah)
-- 
There is a theory that states:  "If anyone finds out what the universe
is for, it will disappear  and be replaced by something more bizarrely
inexplicable." There is another  theory that states: "This has already
happened..." -Douglas Adams, "Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy"
········@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Xah
Subject: Re: Erik Naggum fan club
Date: 
Message-ID: <B4DCFDB4.634B%xah@xahlee.org>
········@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne) wrote:
> The use of the term "crime" is as inflammatory as anything of the
> things of which you accuse #erik.
> 
> And you are committing precisely the same "crimes" you accuse of in
> this very sentence.

Does this mean that i have perfected the art of _parody_?

> #erik may behave in a manner that can be looked at as unfriendly; he
> nonetheless stays quite directed.  When he bashes on someone, it
> happens at a *technical* level, involving a *technical* argument.
> 
> In contrast, your blatherings are unfriendly, but utterly irrelevant
> to the technical discussions of comp.lang.lisp.

Are you saying that it is okay to fuck people technically but not okay to
fuck people ethically? Or, are you saying that if you possess an on-topic
supreme brain then it is a fine art to disregard all manners and fuck people
wantonly?

> #erik may behave in a manner that can be looked at as unfriendly;

Do you kiss Erik's ass for leisure? I wonder if it tickles him.

> (plonk 'xah)

Very very well. Now, allow me to point out YOUR crime.

Your crime is being anal-retentive. The world would be a better place with
more erudite and cheerful and forgiving and kind stud like me than
unimaginative and ineffectual and unsmart wardens like you.

Besides, you irresponsibly poured more grease into the flame as numerous
others before you have done. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR
ACTION WITH REGARDS TO YOUR CONCERN? (Perhaps you do NOT buy utilitarianism
but believes in emotional whining?) Have you considered emailing me
privately to voice your displeasure? You should've reasoned that i'm a
reasonable guy if you have read my messages and have the least amount of
sensibility. But your foulest spectacularity, is the fucking 'plonk'
behavior. Allow me to explain.



           *** Killfile Considered Harmful ***


In newsgroups, killfile is a playful word meaning that the poster has placed
someone in a blacklist of authors, where their postings will be
automatically hidden from view in their newsreader. Such functionality of
newsreaders originated in unix. In the early 90s or before, it used to be
referred to as "sending someone into /dev/null", because '/dev/null' can be
used as a way for deleting email program outputs.

The killfile behavior, is simply put: "sweep-under-the-rug",
"bury-head-in-sand" kind of behavior. Imagine that in a gathering where if
everyone totally ignores other's voices except their own kind, then what
cacophony would result? Similarly, if we ignore the problem of crime by
simply using larger locks for our own doors, what consequence would result?

We are all human beings. Our surroundings are our organs and affects us
dearly. In newsgroups, inevitably there will be certain individuals with
foul breath at times. Killfile mechanism is a very good feature to battle
such annoyances. This is not a reason for falling for the convenience of
blocking your ears from dissenting voices or the nonconformists.

The worst thing i hate about it, is the broadcasting of someone being
killfiled. Oftentimes the sole content of a message is "You've been
killfiled". WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO THE COMMUNITY BY SUCH ANNOUNCEMENT? Is
it a warning system for fellow readers to prepare to follow suit? Or is it a
stupid self-righteous act? In the course of an unpleasant encountering, the
killfilers feel the other party being unworthy of further response but they
don't want to be seen as chickening out so they had to announce it as if
saying: "Hello world: you don't see a returning 'fuck you' from me because
_I_ am _smarter_ and took a step ahead of my antagonist and covered my ears,
not because he is correct or anything like that.". Pride is a human nature,
but unqualified conceit is despicable.

A second motivation for announcing killfile is more explicitly juvenile.
Killfile has several variant names:
 "You've been killfiled." (etymology anyone?)
 "plonk" (sound of falling object)
 "I've send you to /dev/null" (unixism)
and creativity does not seems to cease there, e.g. in comp.lang.lisp:
> (plonk 'xah)
or signatures that reads
"in /dev/null, they can't hear you scream."

The reason of these playful variations is precisely literary folly. The
utterer delights in its use since most are wanting of genuine literary
artistry. This adds to the fashion of killfile and its broadcasting.

Killfile behavior and broadcasting have another curious trait: No burden of
commitment. One cannot really tell if the person really did the killfile.
The decision to make a killfile cry in public does not carry any weight of
responsibility as compared to making a claim, stating a "fact", or
expression an opinion. It is simply a variation of "fuck you". This too,
contributed to its uncontrolled popularity.

--

Mr. Christopher Browne, your real _crime_ (if you allow me a sleight of hand
in writing), is ... well, nothing. However, you erred by not thinking
thoroughly. Not your fault really. We are not all gods of omniscience. Not
all of us are philosophers and no one thought thoroughly about all things.
You err sometimes, and i err sometimes. To err, is to be human. The real
"crime", would be not learning. Got that? Too bad you cannot hear me since
i've been killfiled by you. Well, in that case: "live long you fucking
stupid rigid moron"! (and in case you lied about killfiling me: i _forgive_
you.)

For those killefiler out there, please do me a favor and mull over this
article on trolling
 http://www.deja.com/article/499362270
and please please shut the fuck up the next time you killfile someone. It
will make newsgroup communities a better place.

I, for one, wait for the day when i'm killfiled by everyone on earth, where
i can finally enjoy undisrupted, omniscient solipsism.

 Xah
 ···@xahlee.org
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
From: Ian Wild
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AACFCB.B7B985FC@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>
Robert Posey wrote:
> 
> I work for very
> large company where I am totally unable to affect hiring policies.  The concept
> of spending time improving the tools, even something as minor as EMACS
> customization
> is strongly discouraged.  In fact, given the near zero overhead budgets, it
> could even be illegal to use customer money to improve tools.  It certainly
> would have to be approved.

Are you never allowed to go home?

All the elisp I've ever written was done at home.  Things
I thought would be useful at work then found their way here.
I can't imagine anyone busting you for spending a few seconds
^Xi-ing a defun or two to your own ~/.emacs.  You could even
wait until lunchtime....


(And, yes, I've tried VS.  I find it utterly baffling.)
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AAD932.56789793@raytheon.com>
Ian Wild wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey wrote:
> >
> > I work for very
> > large company where I am totally unable to affect hiring policies.  The concept
> > of spending time improving the tools, even something as minor as EMACS
> > customization
> > is strongly discouraged.  In fact, given the near zero overhead budgets, it
> > could even be illegal to use customer money to improve tools.  It certainly
> > would have to be approved.
> 
> Are you never allowed to go home?
> 
> All the elisp I've ever written was done at home.  Things
> I thought would be useful at work then found their way here.
> I can't imagine anyone busting you for spending a few seconds
> ^Xi-ing a defun or two to your own ~/.emacs.  You could even
> wait until lunchtime....
There are problems with this in the overregulated environment of
a Defense contractor, but I am doing this to learn and customize
EMACS.  We also have the IT people to content with, you must understand that
we are not allowed install anything on our computers without permission.  
Actually I do this often, but I am unwilling to do it for a huge group.  Of
course for the company to get much lift off of the improved tools they have
to be standardized at least a functions supported level.  I had an amazingly
hard time convincing TI(former owner) to get a support person to write a
macro for Mentor to automate a 15 minute process, with dozens of entries that
didn't change, but in which any mistakes caused the process to abort.  They
did give me an award for it I will admit.  However, if the support person
hadn't been a friend, it would have never happened.  In this environment, the
tractability requirements make it very valuable to have all products produced
under costly controls.  While most customizations of an editor would be okay,
the reluctance to spend much time on this is widespread.  Of course no outside
vendor tool set is ever going to meet all our requirements without some
customization,
but there is great reluctance.  BTW if anyone has any cost savings numbers to
support using customizable tools like EMACS, please post them or send them to
me at ·····@raytheon.com.  I by no means like the environment I am in, but
I graduate in a year or so.  Its not worth it to change at the moment.  

Muddy


> 
> (And, yes, I've tried VS.  I find it utterly baffling.)
I will admit that VC and VJ are more than a little baffling, but Visual
Basic, when combined with Visual Basic for application is by far the easiest
From: Michael Kappert
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AACBB2.A39B3E0A@iitb.fhg.de>
Robert Posey wrote:
> If you think the widely recognized relatively steep initial learning curve 
> of EMACS doesn't exist you have lost all touch with reality.  

I always thought 'having a steep learning curve' meant 'learning quickly'.
Also, i thought that a 'learning curve' was attributed to the person that
learns,
not to the thing being learned.

As a non-native english speaker, could someone explain this to me?

Michael


-- 
Michael Kappert
Fraunhofer IITB
Fraunhoferstr. 1                                       Phone: +49(0)721/6091-477
D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany                             EMail: ···@iitb.fhg.de
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AADB28.A06B21B@raytheon.com>
Michael Kappert wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey wrote:
> > If you think the widely recognized relatively steep initial learning curve
> > of EMACS doesn't exist you have lost all touch with reality.
> 
> I always thought 'having a steep learning curve' meant 'learning quickly'.
> Also, i thought that a 'learning curve' was attributed to the person that
> learns,
> not to the thing being learned.
> 
> As a non-native english speaker, could someone explain this to me?

I am not sure which is correct, but I have usually heard it used to describe the
process of learning a task.  Each new concept or task has a learning curve that
is relatively fixed.  However, a person learning the new task may start at
different
places on the curve. Thus the proper usage is to say a person is ON a Learning
Curve 
and a Process has a Learning Curve.   They can also progress at different rates
up
or down the curve.  In the formal model, I not sure how exactly the rate of
progress
is modeled.  I am only familiar with concept of people starting at different
places on
the curve.  I think the concept of going down a learning curve refers a person
forgetting 
a process they are not using.  I maybe completely off on the formal concept, but
that
is the usage in this company.

Muddy

> 
> Michael
> 
> --
> Michael Kappert
> Fraunhofer IITB
> Fraunhoferstr. 1                                       Phone: +49(0)721/6091-477
> D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany                             EMail: ···@iitb.fhg.de
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Learning curves (was Re: Are there any LISP development systems...)
Date: 
Message-ID: <ey3og9hvwek.fsf_-_@cley.com>
* Michael Kappert wrote:
> I always thought 'having a steep learning curve' meant 'learning quickly'.
> Also, i thought that a 'learning curve' was attributed to the person that
> learns,
> not to the thing being learned.

The general use, I think, is that there's a certain amount you have
to learn before you can begin to use something in a reasonable way (be
it a program or a violin).  If the amount you have to learn is a lot
(say for a violin), then the curve is described as `steep'.  It only
really makes sense to talk about it that way if you consider the time
it takes too -- the learning curve for a violin is not steep in any
reasonable sense if you're willing to spend 50 years on learning it.

I think that it's pretty clear that the ability to deal with a really
aggressive learning curve in this sense is one of the characteristics
which used to distinguish real computer people from the general
population.  We all have our stories of how the first job we did after
college involved being an office and a cheque book and told to make a
supercomputer by next week.  And part of the trick is to know that you
*can* do this frightening thing, certainly in my case after a couple
of instances of being given some thing to do which I had no idea even
how to start, and discovering that I could just read the manual and
fight my way through it, I don't get frightened by learning hard things
any more.

But I think now that everyone uses computers, many more people are
just not willing to put this effort in, and they want something that
they can use competently immediately with no effort.  Many people
perhaps can't do the fast-learning thing, and sadly others, who could,
are being spoiled by the received wisdom that it should not be
necessary.  Sometimes I wonder why this has not happened for things
like musical instruments -- you don't hear people saying `the violin
should just not be so difficult to play!'.

Whether it is *possible* to have an immediately-usable program which
is not just crippling later on, when all the easy stuff starts getting
in the way, I don't know.  I suspect it may be, but I haven't seen
one.  Certainly things like the Windows GUI fail dismally here for me
(I haven't used the visual-foobar environments though).

--tim
From: Harley Davis
Subject: Re: Learning Curves
Date: 
Message-ID: <38aaf5b3$0$240@newsreader.alink.net>
Michael Kappert <···@iitb.fhg.de> wrote in message
······················@iitb.fhg.de...
>
>
> Robert Posey wrote:
> > If you think the widely recognized relatively steep initial learning
curve
> > of EMACS doesn't exist you have lost all touch with reality.
>
> I always thought 'having a steep learning curve' meant 'learning quickly'.
> Also, i thought that a 'learning curve' was attributed to the person that
> learns, not to the thing being learned.

An interesting question actually.

If a learning curve is plotted as skill level on the dependent axis vs. time
on the independent axis, then of course people have learning curves, not the
thing being learned - unless for a particular task there is strong enough
similarity between people that each learner's curve is essentially
identical.

I believe most people elide the distinction between an individual's learning
curve for a task and the task's average learning curve, especially when
comparing tasks:  It is easier for almost everyone to get started using VS
than to get started using Emacs, so we can simply compare average learning
curves.

As far as the steepness of learning curves, this surprised me at first but
logically you are of course correct - a steep learning curve would imply a
task which is easily or at least quickly learned to a high degree of skill.
However, despite all logic, people often speak of steep learning curves for
tasks that are difficult and lengthy to acquire.  My best guess here is that
they confuse the actual interpretation of the graph (which would lead to
your conclusion) with the natural implications of being confronted with a
steep hill in physical reality - such a hill is difficult and lengthy to
climb.

-- Harley
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Learning Curves
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AAF9D4.D1DD7F3C@raytheon.com>
Harley Davis wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the steepness of learning curves, this surprised me at first but
> logically you are of course correct - a steep learning curve would imply a
> task which is easily or at least quickly learned to a high degree of skill.
> However, despite all logic, people often speak of steep learning curves for
> tasks that are difficult and lengthy to acquire.  My best guess here is that
> they confuse the actual interpretation of the graph (which would lead to
> your conclusion) with the natural implications of being confronted with a
> steep hill in physical reality - such a hill is difficult and lengthy to
> climb.

I stand corrected, I believe Harley maybe correct.

Muddy

> 
> -- Harley
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: Learning Curves
Date: 
Message-ID: <pw-1602001659260001@166.84.250.180>
In article <·················@raytheon.com>, Robert Posey
<·····@raytheon.com> wrote:

>Harley Davis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As far as the steepness of learning curves, this surprised me at first but
>> logically you are of course correct - a steep learning curve would imply a
>> task which is easily or at least quickly learned to a high degree of skill.
>> However, despite all logic, people often speak of steep learning curves for
>> tasks that are difficult and lengthy to acquire.  My best guess here is that
>> they confuse the actual interpretation of the graph (which would lead to
>> your conclusion) with the natural implications of being confronted with a
>> steep hill in physical reality - such a hill is difficult and lengthy to
>> climb.
>
>I stand corrected, I believe Harley maybe correct.

The learning curve might be in the form of functionality achieved or percentage
of task finished vs effort expended (with effort on the y axis) to get you the
colloquial result. Time isn't really a factor except insofar as there's
only so much
energy you can devote per unit time.

One of the big questional about learning curves is plateaus and inflection
points:
Some tools require you to work very hard to get anything done at all, but once
you have learned them, you can do all the rest without further expenditure of
energy; others are more linear, and some of the most annoying have a sharp 
upward slope right before the end rather than at the beginning...

paul
From: Michael Kappert
Subject: Re: Learning Curves
Date: 
Message-ID: <38ABB5DB.4735AFC6@iitb.fhg.de>
Paul Wallich wrote:
> 
> The learning curve might be in the form of functionality achieved or percentage
> of task finished vs effort expended (with effort on the y axis) to get you the
> colloquial result. Time isn't really a factor except insofar as there's
> only so much energy you can devote per unit time.

I think I'm getting the picture. 
I'd replace 'percentage of task finished' by 'percentage of skills acquiered'.

> One of the big questional about learning curves is plateaus and inflection
> points:
> Some tools require you to work very hard to get anything done at all, but once
> you have learned them, you can do all the rest without further expenditure of
> energy; others are more linear, and some of the most annoying have a sharp
> upward slope right before the end rather than at the beginning...

True.
And I suspect Emacs falls in the first category, while VS falls in the last...
Also, the learning curve crucially depends on the task at hand. Some tools
may have learning curves with infinite slope with respect to some tasks.

Michael
 
-- 
Michael Kappert
Fraunhofer IITB
Fraunhoferstr. 1                                       Phone: +49(0)721/6091-477
D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany                             EMail: ···@iitb.fhg.de
From: Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <x23dqjyhpc.fsf@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:

>     If you think the widely 
> recognized relatively steep initial learning curve of EMACS doesn't exist you
> have lost all touch with reality.  I have heard 100's of people complain
> about it, and since we are talking about a human factors issue this is
> absolute proof.  So unless you have knowledge of well conducted surveys
> that disprove this basic point, you are the one making invalid unsupported
> statements.

There's a widely held perception that Emacs is difficult to use
because it has 100s of commands that are all obscure control keys
and the like - but this is largely a consequence of people not being
told the right things about Emacs when they start learning it.
(A similar thing happens with Lisp syntax and parens.)

After hearing one of these standard complaints one time from someone
who wanted students to have to use a very cut-down Emacs-like editor
instead, I decide I'd write down a list of the commands students would
need to know in order to edit text and Lisp source code, save to
files, etc.  I tried to keep it fairly minimal, but not completely.
So I included M-/ and undo, for instance.  The final list contained
something like 12 commands.  (Sorry, I don't have it handy these days,
but I'm pretty sure the results would be similar if I did it again.)

It's simply a fact that it's not difficult to learn 12 commands.
The chief problem is when someone comes to the task with an attitude
that Emacs sucks, and it's the wrong kind of editor, and no one
should be forced to use it, and so on.

-- j
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87bt574xii.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Jeff Dalton <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> writes:

> It's simply a fact that it's not difficult to learn 12 commands.
> The chief problem is when someone comes to the task with an attitude
> that Emacs sucks, and it's the wrong kind of editor, and no one
> should be forced to use it, and so on.

Furthermore all of these commands can be found in the menu when
working in a GUI environment nowadays, except the usual text-motion
commands, which are on their usual cursor arrow keys.

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Dorai Sitaram
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <891b23$1k$1@news.gte.com>
In article <··············@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton  <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>It's simply a fact that it's not difficult to learn 12 commands.
>The chief problem is when someone comes to the task with an attitude
>that Emacs sucks, and it's the wrong kind of editor, and no one
>should be forced to use it, and so on.

The fact remains that Lisp instruction (eg, see
Winston & Horn or google for Lisp courseware on
the Web) and the Lisp community (eg, see Marco
Antoniotti ;-> ) tend to unnecessarily overspecify the
text-editor to be used, and invariably this is (Gnu or
X) Emacs.

--d
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwd7pnafng.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai Sitaram) writes:

> In article <··············@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk>,
> Jeff Dalton  <····@todday.aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >It's simply a fact that it's not difficult to learn 12 commands.
> >The chief problem is when someone comes to the task with an attitude
> >that Emacs sucks, and it's the wrong kind of editor, and no one
> >should be forced to use it, and so on.
> 
> The fact remains that Lisp instruction (eg, see
> Winston & Horn or google for Lisp courseware on
> the Web) and the Lisp community (eg, see Marco
> Antoniotti ;-> ) tend to unnecessarily overspecify the
> text-editor to be used, and invariably this is (Gnu or
> X) Emacs.

I admit I just used 'vi' a few minutes ago :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Jonathan Guthrie
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <a7ie88.vp5.ln@206.180.155.28>
Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> wrote:
> I went so far as to explain why the 
> initial learning curve was a problem.  Do I think its wise that companies
> don't make the effort to hire good people and train them on powerful tools
> like a customized version of EMACS can be.

I'm sure Mr. Naggum's rant is better, but here's mine:

How long does it take to learn that the up-arrow moves you up in the
file, the down arrow moves you down, the left- and right-arrows do the
obvious things, control-x control-s saves and control-c control-s exits?
To learn to make minimal use of an editor is the work of seconds.

Marking text and deleting or copying takes a few more seconds to learn.
Yes, to learn too nontrivial things takes a while, but most of what
beginners do with editors is trivial.  (I would say that most of what 
advanced users do with editors is trivial, but there are people who do
EMACS Lisp as automatically as they breathe.)  Most of the rest is 
specialized to the application and, therefore, is limited.

I used vi for years before learning how to cut-and-paste between files.

> Of course not, but having no desire to
> rise above a lead technical position there is nothing I can do about that.

That's another thing about what you say.  Technical lead is going to be
responsible for specifying positions and qualifying candidates.  You have
to be if you expect to get the people you need to do the job.  That is,
if you take the job you say you don't want to rise above, you WILL BE
responsible for setting some of these policies.  In that case, you should
take my advice:  Don't hire people who expect that their employer will
train them in what they need to know.  Usually, new people are dropped in
to firestorms and will need to get up to speed on their own because
everyone else is busy doing the work they're paid to do.  Instead, look
for people who are willing to take a pile of specifications and such and
figure out what to do on their own, or with a minimum of involvement
from the others on the team.  I'll pay for your copy of O'Reilly's
_Learning GNU Emacs_ and _Using Vi_, but don't expect me to read them to
you, or force you to read them yourself if the information contained
therein is what you need to do your job properly.

I don't like hiring people who are Microsoft-oriented because they tend
to be married to Microsoft Technical Support.  If I hire you (and I DO
hire people) I'm paying YOU for YOUR knowledge and I'm not getting my
money's worth if the sum total of that knowledge is Microsoft's 800-number
for technical support.  Yes, if you have a well-defined question with a
known answer (that somehow didn't make it into the documentation, where
the answers to all well-defined questions should be) it may be cheaper in
this one instance to have you ask someone at Microsoft for that answer.

However, in the long run, I, as an employer, benefit more if you develop
a deep understanding of the systems you work on and the environment that
you work in and that requires mucking about with the innards (I like to
call it "spelunking" because it is) in a way that may not be immediately
productive.  I should also point out that many of the questions asked of
anybody's technical support are not well-formed and, as a result, the
answers those people get are ambiguous, misleading, or just plain wrong.

Now, I personally don't know any systems for which using Microsoft Visual
Studio is a requirement and I sure don't work on any for which it is an
available tool, so the learning curve difference (and it's not as large
as you think--it's just that you've already climbed the one already so
it looks smaller than it was at the time) is not significant in my case.
YMMV, but to make sense, you've got to pick whether you approach things
as an embedded systems programmer or a Windows application developer.
The two approaches are different.  Right now, and as a senior embedded
systems programmer, you look an awful lot like a Windows application
developer to me.
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AAF94F.6B44D3FC@raytheon.com>
Jonathan Guthrie wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> wrote:
> > I went so far as to explain why the
> > initial learning curve was a problem.  Do I think its wise that companies
> > don't make the effort to hire good people and train them on powerful tools
> > like a customized version of EMACS can be.
> 
> I'm sure Mr. Naggum's rant is better, but here's mine:
> 
> How long does it take to learn that the up-arrow moves you up in the
> file, the down arrow moves you down, the left- and right-arrows do the
> obvious things, control-x control-s saves and control-c control-s exits?
> To learn to make minimal use of an editor is the work of seconds.
> 
> Marking text and deleting or copying takes a few more seconds to learn.
> Yes, to learn too nontrivial things takes a while, but most of what
> beginners do with editors is trivial.  (I would say that most of what
> advanced users do with editors is trivial, but there are people who do
> EMACS Lisp as automatically as they breathe.)  Most of the rest is
> specialized to the application and, therefore, is limited.

People still have problems, why is another question.  Part of the problem
is many people are used to Windows type method and out of the box Emacs is
much different.


> 
> I used vi for years before learning how to cut-and-paste between files.
> 
> > Of course not, but having no desire to
> > rise above a lead technical position there is nothing I can do about that.
> 
> That's another thing about what you say.  Technical lead is going to be
> responsible for specifying positions and qualifying candidates.  You have
> to be if you expect to get the people you need to do the job.  
Not here, I have never had the chance to hire my own people.  It happens, but
the much more common event is that they are assigned.  Even when you have a
choice, it tends to be very limited.



> I don't like hiring people who are Microsoft-oriented because they tend
> to be married to Microsoft Technical Support.  If I hire you (and I DO
> hire people) I'm paying YOU for YOUR knowledge and I'm not getting my
> money's worth if the sum total of that knowledge is Microsoft's 800-number
> for technical support.  

I actually don't use anything but Word or Excel for my main job.  I haven't
found MS to ever be much help at all unless it was a business oriented 
question.

> However, in the long run, I, as an employer, benefit more if you develop
> a deep understanding of the systems you work on and the environment that
> you work in and that requires mucking about with the innards (I like to
> call it "spelunking" because it is) in a way that may not be immediately
> productive.  I should also point out that many of the questions asked of
> anybody's technical support are not well-formed and, as a result, the
> answers those people get are ambiguous, misleading, or just plain wrong.

I agree, except that our systems are Embedded and most of the windows and
Linux environmental knowledge is only helpful in comparison.  Most of the
code I write, or design runs on system without operating systems.  If they
do have an operating system its VxWorks.  So while all knowledge is helpful,
when I have a choice I am much more impressed by a software person's hardware
or signal processing knowledge than anything to do with general purpose 
computers.  In fact too much experience with large system software design 
is a big minus, it seems to create a mindset that doesn't understand real
time.  This maybe why I value the ability to customize Emacs less than some,
even though it is potentially more valuable in a real time world due to 
the large number of custom construct needed.  If I can find someone who
knows both worlds, that wonderful.  However, at my company you can be
sure that they will be gone soon.  

Muddy





> 
> Now, I personally don't know any systems for which using Microsoft Visual
> Studio is a requirement and I sure don't work on any for which it is an
> available tool, so the learning curve difference (and it's not as large
> as you think--it's just that you've already climbed the one already so
> it looks smaller than it was at the time) is not significant in my case.
> YMMV, but to make sense, you've got to pick whether you approach things
> as an embedded systems programmer or a Windows application developer.
> The two approaches are different.  Right now, and as a senior embedded
> systems programmer, you look an awful lot like a Windows application
> developer to me.

That maybe because I don't directly write much of the Embedded code, and
write more windows stuff on the side.  I design Embedded Test Algorithms,
which are even lower level than the rest of the Embedded code.  When I
become involved with the code, its in the integration stage.  I have 
debugged many, many times more code than I have written.  I guess my actual
coding experience in 15 years as a hardware designer, then systems engineer 
is split about 50/50.  I not saying that no one uses EMACS here, I just saying
that it has failed to be standardized as a choice.  My whole point has been
apparently wasted on the flamers.  I have tried to say over and over again
that their debate methodology was flawed.  Remember I use EMACS even though
I don't use often enough to over come the curve.  I never said it wasn't worth
the effort, I said the curve was higher than it needed to be.  Looking at
the latest versions, it is clear the developers agree with me since they
have made major efforts to make it easier to use.  If software companies that
produce good software continue to ignore the out of the box issues that MS
has done at least fairly well on, MS will continue to dominate.  Calling the
people who complain about these issues stupid, lazy or any other insult is
not fighting Bill Legions, its surrender.

Muddy
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38ab1ba2.0@flint.sentex.net>
In article <·················@raytheon.com>,
	Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com> writes:
> ...
> I don't use often enough to over come the curve.  I never said it wasn't worth
> the effort, I said the curve was higher than it needed to be.  Looking at
> the latest versions, it is clear the developers agree with me since they
> have made major efforts to make it easier to use.  If software companies that
> produce good software continue to ignore the out of the box issues that MS
> has done at least fairly well on, MS will continue to dominate.  Calling the
> people who complain about these issues stupid, lazy or any other insult is
> not fighting Bill Legions, its surrender.

most people who are seriously into software development don't mind the
initial effort to learn a tool that gives them muchg more in the long run

-- 

Hartmann Schaffer

It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3159732982259519@naggum.no>
* Robert Posey <·····@raytheon.com>
| However, at my company you can be sure that they will be gone soon.

  so this really boils down to your still working at a place that is deeply
  dissatisfying to you, but it serves your personal needs better to blame
  Emacs (and/or Common Lisp) than to get out of your miserable situation.

  over the years, we have had a lot of people like you in comp.lang.lisp
  and the Emacs newsgroups.  I guess this is so because people think it's
  OK to blame these tools, but not OK to blame some other tools (such as
  Microsoft's cruftware), for the simple reason that being miserable in the
  majority makes people feel a lot _safer_ than being in a small minority
  (whether one would be miserable there or not).  I do my very best to make
  people feel unsafe and a lot more miserable in the majority, so it shall
  appear, if not be, safer and better to be in the minority, instead.

  your apologia for remaining at a miserable place are unconvincing at best.

  go fix your _real_ problem, OK?

#:Erik
From: William Deakin
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A93554.EC323526@pindar.com>
Robert wrote:

> I wouldn't consider my argument half-literate, whining perhaps but literate
> whining.

This statment puzzles me as elsewhere you have state that you don't like reading. I
believe your words were 'However, a piece of software that makes a user ... read a
lot of documentation is using a very dated delivery concept.' I was under the
illusion that reading was a fundamental of literacy. But hey, maybe this is no
longer cool with you hep-cat daddios out there ;)

TTFN,

:) will

ps: It makes me curious as to what the most popular beat-combo is these days?
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A979AD.FB1F22AA@raytheon.com>
William Deakin wrote:
> 
> Robert wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't consider my argument half-literate, whining perhaps but literate
> > whining.
> 
> This statment puzzles me as elsewhere you have state that you don't like reading. I
> believe your words were 'However, a piece of software that makes a user ... read a
> lot of documentation is using a very dated delivery concept.' I was under the
> illusion that reading was a fundamental of literacy. But hey, maybe this is no
> longer cool with you hep-cat daddios out there ;)


If I stated I didn't like reading I lied.  I love to read, and I will admit I am
just now finishing the EMACS Manuals.  I probably read 100+ books a year, with
20 of them technical books of some kind.  However, I though you were using 
half-literate to refer to my presentation of my arguments, not my lack of 
reading ability.


Muddy
> 
> TTFN,
> 
> :) will
> 
> ps: It makes me curious as to what the most popular beat-combo is these days?
From: Fernando
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <0kngascvdav1mba9r5h49mhnosevu80nt1@4ax.com>
On 14 Feb 2000 00:34:42 +0100, ····@acm.org (Pierre R. Mai) wrote:


>Let's turn this question around:  Try to list what functionality from
>the Visual Studio environment you find missing, why, and what you are
>trying to achieve when you use this functionality.  Given this list,
>the readers of c.l.l will most likely be only to happy to point out

	The autocompletion hints stuff (intellisense or however its
called).  It's convenient. :-)






//-----------------------------------------------
//	Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
//	frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <Xheq4.33020$vi4.82987@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote in message
···················@g.local...
> In the same vein, if you type the start of a function
> invocation
>
>     y = f(
>
> then it pops up a "tool-tip" box showing you the function's
> signature, and as you enter arguments it keeps the type of
> the one you're entering highlighted.

I thought this was sort of neat until the damn `tool-tip' box
obscured the thing I was looking at to figure out what
actual value I wanted to pass.  The tool tip told me I should
pass an int, but it obscured the value of the int I wanted.

Eventually, MS will re-invent the mode line.
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lw66vq9990.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> In the same vein, if you type the start of a function
> invocation
> 
>     y = f(
> 
> then it pops up a "tool-tip" box showing you the function's
> signature, and as you enter arguments it keeps the type of
> the one you're entering highlighted. Again, there are some
> gratuitous nastinesses; but, again, it's still good to have.

ILISP 5.9.4 does the same for Common Lisp under Emacs :) Yes.  There
are some gratuitus nastinesses in ILISP as well :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Philip Lijnzaad
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <u7wvo62188.fsf@o2-3.ebi.ac.uk>
On 14 Feb 2000 23:45:33 +0000, 
"Gareth" == Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
Gareth> In the same vein, if you type the start of a function
Gareth> invocation

Gareth> y = f(

Gareth> then it pops up a "tool-tip" box showing you the function's

Does this involve a paperclip ?-) 

Gareth> signature, and as you enter arguments it keeps the type of

For emacs lisp, there is eldoc: 

;;; eldoc.el --- show function arglist or variable docstring in echo area

which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 

                                                                      Philip
-- 
Not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, ········@ebi.ac.uk | European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 | Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           | Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86k8k65dcs.fsf@g.local>
Philip Lijnzaad wrote:

[I said:]
> Gareth> then it pops up a "tool-tip" box showing you the function's
> 
> Does this involve a paperclip ?-) 

No. No paperclips *anywhere*. Not on my machine at work,
anyway. Every now and then I hear a howl of anguish from
across the office when someone else accidentally turns the
paperclip on. :-)

> For emacs lisp, there is eldoc: 
> 
> ;;; eldoc.el --- show function arglist or variable docstring in echo area

Oooo. I didn't know about that. Thank you. And thanks
likewise to Marco for telling me that ILISP has a similar
feature.

> which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
> such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 

The tag-based stuff is nice, but it's more intrusive than
the Visual Studio thing. At least, it's more intrusive for
me. For someone with a better memory, who finds the
information useful less frequently, it's probably the
other way around.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI  IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38A9E83B.41308842@raytheon.com>
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> 
> Philip Lijnzaad wrote:
> 

> 
> > which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
> > such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag).
> 
> The tag-based stuff is nice, but it's more intrusive than
> the Visual Studio thing. At least, it's more intrusive for
> me. For someone with a better memory, who finds the
> information useful less frequently, it's probably the
> other way around.

Visual Studio does have tags in a primitive way of bookmarks.  It works pretty
well for the simple jumping around I do.

Muddy
> 
> --
> Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
> sig under construction
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI   IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86emad7z0f.fsf@g.local>
Robert Posey wrote:

> Visual Studio does have tags in a primitive way of bookmarks.  It
> works pretty well for the simple jumping around I do.

That doesn't have much to do with Emacs's tags. The point
of tags is that a tags table is generated automatically,
and then you tell it "go to the definition of such-and-such
a function" and it uses the information in the tags table
to do it. Visual Studio has a similar feature, but it
doesn't use the word "tags", and the information is stored
in some opaque and undocumented format. :-)

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Robert Posey
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI    IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38AB1309.49963482@raytheon.com>
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> 
> Robert Posey wrote:
> 
> > Visual Studio does have tags in a primitive way of bookmarks.  It
> > works pretty well for the simple jumping around I do.
> 
> That doesn't have much to do with Emacs's tags. The point
> of tags is that a tags table is generated automatically,
> and then you tell it "go to the definition of such-and-such
> a function" and it uses the information in the tags table
> to do it. Visual Studio has a similar feature, but it
> doesn't use the word "tags", and the information is stored
> in some opaque and undocumented format. :-)

I was only equating them with the set and goto operations some one
mentioned, Visual Studio's go to definition, and got use of definition
works pretty well.  I will agree however that Microsoft is that worst at
using strange formats to store files.  My most favorable guess as to 
why they do this is that they are trying to Stifle competition, if not
they are utter idiots.  Are you sure its undocumented, have you looked at
their website?

Muddy

> 
> --
> Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
> sig under construction
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <86k8k31mzm.fsf@g.local>
Robert Posey wrote:

> I was only equating them with the set and goto operations some one
> mentioned, Visual Studio's go to definition, and got use of definition
> works pretty well.  I will agree however that Microsoft is that worst at
> using strange formats to store files.  My most favorable guess as to 
> why they do this is that they are trying to Stifle competition, if not
> they are utter idiots.  Are you sure its undocumented, have you looked at
> their website?

Actually, I haven't. Maybe the format of Visual Studio
project and workspace files is documented there. It
doesn't seem very likely to me, though...

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  ················@pobox.com
sig under construction
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI     IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87n1oz744g.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

> Robert Posey wrote:
> 
> > I was only equating them with the set and goto operations some one
> > mentioned, Visual Studio's go to definition, and got use of definition
> > works pretty well.  I will agree however that Microsoft is that worst at
> > using strange formats to store files.  My most favorable guess as to 
> > why they do this is that they are trying to Stifle competition, if not
> > they are utter idiots.  Are you sure its undocumented, have you looked at
> > their website?
> 
> Actually, I haven't. Maybe the format of Visual Studio
> project and workspace files is documented there. It
> doesn't seem very likely to me, though...

It also doesn't matter with MicroSoft:  Generally, even when they
"document" their interfaces or file formats, they leave out critical
pieces of information, and anyway they feel not bound in any way to
maintain any form of useful compatibility with the documented stuff in 
future releases.  Given that, they might as well not document it at
all.

Note e.g. that many parts of the Word "document" formats have been
"documented" by MS.  This nevertheless leaves the task to handle Word
files extraordinarily difficult...

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwputxpm64.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:

...

> > which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
> > such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 
> 
> The tag-based stuff is nice, but it's more intrusive than
> the Visual Studio thing. At least, it's more intrusive for
> me. For someone with a better memory, who finds the
> information useful less frequently, it's probably the
> other way around.

Speaking of which...
ILISP support for tags is somewhat unsatisfactory.  If anybody is
willing to look into it, it will be appreciated.

Another problem is 'etags'.  Last time I checked (I should give it
another try, is my fellow countryman Potorti` listening :) ),
DEFMETHOD and friends did not get the right treatment.

Cheers


-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <WOWqOG4S7SkCDzwTDWS8UbNpEOjb@4ax.com>
On 16 Feb 2000 09:49:07 +0100, Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it>
wrote:

> Another problem is 'etags'.  Last time I checked (I should give it
> another try, is my fellow countryman Potorti` listening :) ),
> DEFMETHOD and friends did not get the right treatment.

Without ILISP, the standard tag commands seem to work fine. etags is
supposed to correctly handle any kind of DEFSOMETHING form. Here is what
the Emacs manual says: "In Lisp code, any function defined with DEFUN, any
variable defined with DEFVAR or DEFCONST, and in general the first argument
of any expression that starts with `(DEF' in column zero, is a tag.". Which
specific problems are you referring to?


Paolo
-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
From: Andras Simon
Subject: Re: What's your Emacs like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <vcd4sb7cz53.fsf@csusza.math.bme.hu>
Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:


> 1. What packages do you use to facilitate Lisp programming?
> - ANSI compatibility and "inferiority"
> - indentation support (with caveats, e.g., the use of the SERIES pkg)
> - lambda list display, documentation display
> - integration with references like Hyperspec
> - debugging tools (object browser, inspector, debugger)
> - interaction with the implementation - tips in addition to vendor doc
> ....
> 

oo-browser from beopen.com seems useful for browsing classes (I don't
use it because my screen is too small...:-( ).

For the rest, Franz's ELI package with Erik Naggum hyperspec.el + w3.
It's great.

Andras
From: Jan Vroonhof
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <byya8mvffu.fsf@math.ethz.ch>
Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:

> ;;; eldoc.el --- show function arglist or variable docstring in echo area
> 
> which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
> such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 

Ilisp (Common lisp) and JDE (Java). That is because these languages
actually provide the information needed in some reasonable form.

Eric Ludlam is working on this (and has a mostly working general
parser in Elisp!, incluse yacc equivalent). He has requested help from
people with parser experience to make it faster.

Jan
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <lwitzqk2wg.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>
Jan Vroonhof <········@frege.math.ethz.ch> writes:

> Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > ;;; eldoc.el --- show function arglist or variable docstring in echo area
> > 
> > which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
> > such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 
> 
> Ilisp (Common lisp) and JDE (Java). That is because these languages
> actually provide the information needed in some reasonable form.
> 
> Eric Ludlam is working on this (and has a mostly working general
> parser in Elisp!, incluse yacc equivalent). He has requested help from
> people with parser experience to make it faster.

He can do (require 'cl) and use all the CL facilities in Emacs Lisp.
Then he can port the beast to CL and compile it to native code.  :)

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
From: Jonathan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <hnurOOVlTzRyqPeD09s353ntO8dP@4ax.com>
Thank you to everyone who responded to my question regarding coming to
EMACS from a background of the MS Visual tools.  I am trying to locate
the documentation necessary for me to start using EMACS in a more
optimal fashion. I appreciate the tip for Meta-tab and Meta-/ symbol
completion - this has already been very helpful. The eldoc module
described below also sounds useful, but I have been unable to locate
it. Can anyone point me to this module and any standard LISP resources
(ie somewhere that I could have searched for this module myself -
yahoo was unhelpful).

Thanks again,
Jonathan
 

On 15 Feb 2000 10:45:27 +0000, Philip Lijnzaad <········@ebi.ac.uk>
wrote:

>On 14 Feb 2000 23:45:33 +0000, 
>"Gareth" == Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>Gareth> In the same vein, if you type the start of a function
>Gareth> invocation
>
>Gareth> y = f(
>
>Gareth> then it pops up a "tool-tip" box showing you the function's
>
>Does this involve a paperclip ?-) 
>
>Gareth> signature, and as you enter arguments it keeps the type of
>
>For emacs lisp, there is eldoc: 
>
>;;; eldoc.el --- show function arglist or variable docstring in echo area
>
>which works wonders; I suspect there are more language-specific versions of
>such functionality out there (starting with etags and find-tag). 
>
>                                                                      Philip
From: Jon K Hellan
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87putw43qg.fsf@parus.parus.no>
Jonathan <··@spam.com> writes:

> The eldoc module
> described below also sounds useful, but I have been unable to locate
> it. Can anyone point me to this module and any standard LISP resources
> (ie somewhere that I could have searched for this module myself -
> yahoo was unhelpful).

It's in the standard distribution. To activate it, put this in your
.emacs:

(autoload 'turn-on-eldoc-mode "eldoc" nil t)
(add-hook 'emacs-lisp-mode-hook 'turn-on-eldoc-mode)
(add-hook 'lisp-interaction-mode-hook 'turn-on-eldoc-mode)

If you want to look at it the code, M-x locate-library eldoc will tell
you where it is.

Jon
From: Jonathan
Subject: Lisp Emacs and ELI
Date: 
Message-ID: <5dusOF7ZBbQemi3uCyEuDm3tvFYw@4ax.com>
Hi,

I know that this might be an obvious question, but I can't seem to
figure out how to nicely compile and load LISP code that I am working
on in a buffer into a LISP process running in another buffer through
ELI. I am running Allegro CL with ELI. After starting an Allegro LISP
interpreter (fi:common-lisp), I start working on my code in another
buffer, but when I make a change to my code I have to type:
(load "/filepath/filename")
in the interpreter window to reload the changes. Is there a way of
doing this automatically?
(If I simply need to write an emacs function to do it, I believe I can
at this point; however, I would imagine this would be a necessary
feature and that it probably already exists.)

Thanks,
Jonathan
From: Janos Blazi
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38b0438a_5@goliath.newsfeeds.com>
I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of functionality
I'd like to have (and it is in VC):

A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
cannot find it.

Janos Blazi

Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··············@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de...
> Duane Smith <··@spam.com> writes:
>
> > I am a new LISP programmer - coming from a background of the Visual
> > Studios tools - and trying to figure out how to setup a similar
> > environment in emacs. I use the Allegro CL package and their
> > "fi:common-lisp" editing mode, which does provide some nice features
> > (indenting, color-coding code, etc), but I still feel that it lacks a
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^  Automatic indenting is IMHO not a "nice" feature, it is
> essential for any serious programming to take place, especially in the
> team context:  Without AI(<g>), you will either have to spend some
> amount of your attention to manual indenting and/or produce unevenly
> indented and therefore badly-readable code (remember:  you write code
> for your fellow programmers, not for the computer).
>
> > lot of the features of the MS tools. I understand that others who have
> > been using emacs have discovered that it is a superior tool; however,
> > I am at a loss to make this discovery for myself. Are there any
> > on-line documents that document emac's functionality as far as making
> > the MS tools "like having your power drill replaced with a hammer"?
>
> Let's turn this question around:  Try to list what functionality from
> the Visual Studio environment you find missing, why, and what you are
> trying to achieve when you use this functionality.  Given this list,
> the readers of c.l.l will most likely be only to happy to point out
>
> a) ways to obtain the functionality, or
> b) explain other/better ways of obtaining the indented result, or
> c) explain other/better strategies alltogether of achieving the real
>    objective,
>
> where appropriate.  This approach will probably help you more than
> some on-line documents (for this, just read the fine documentation
> that comes with your Emacs)...
>
> To find out various general (and specific) statements of the
> functionality of Emacs, just do a search on c.l.l for articles related
> to Emacs (I've written a couple myself, and most other regular posters
> here have done so, too.) on DejaNews.
>
> Some basic aspects that sum up the differences between VS and Emacs
> for me are: Emacs is not MicroSoft, Windows, Visual, Point&Click,
> it's programmable in a real programming language (Emacs Lisp), it
> has incorporated the combined experience of over 20 years of Emacs
> editing.  It's not trying to compete on flashiness, it's competing
> on real-life usability.  This difference in spirit permeates nearly
> all design decissions, so it's just a worlds apart experience.
>
> Regs, Pierre.
>
> --
> Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest
Keyserver
>   "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is
Microsoft-
>    bashing." [Microsoft memo, see
http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <slrn8b0hou.5gc.cbbrowne@knuth.brownes.org>
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Janos Blazi would say:
>I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of functionality
>I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
>
>A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
>cannot find it.

It's there, at least in GNU Emacs; I don't recall how I configured it to work.

[Note: redirected to comp.emacs, as this isn't really a Lisp question...]
-- 
"Using Java  as a general purpose application  development language is
like  going big  game  hunting  armed with  Nerf  weapons." 
-- Author Unknown
········@hex.net - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
From: Marc Battyani
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <0722A5789FB44CE4.D3D016237FEFE161.B7B3AB51CE72C822@lp.airnews.net>
Look at desktop.el. It saves the list of the buffers on disk to reload them
when you restart (X)Emacs.
You can hack it to reload only the 10 more recently used or to present you
such a list.

Marc Battyani

Janos Blazi <······@netsurf.de> wrote in message
···············@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
> I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of
functionality
> I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
>
> A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
> cannot find it.
>
> Janos Blazi
From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87snyntu8c.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:

> I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of functionality
> I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
> 
> A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
> cannot find it.

There are a number of packages that offer this and/or similar
functionality.  Personally I use recent-files.el which is part of the
XEmacs' edit-utils package.  AFAIK this only works with XEmacs, but it
might have been ported.  There are other packages which do similar
things on FSF Emacs as well (desktop?).

Recent files offer's you a persistent list of the n files you recently
visited, and it includes options to make some files part of a
permanent list.

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
From: Fernando
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <6uu1bscjprfmmhfbh6lb7q9cjjnhl3o05v@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:50:57 +0100, "Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de>
wrote:

>I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of functionality
>I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
>
>A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
>cannot find it.

You should have asked before. ;-)

Add this to your .emacs:

(load "recent-files")
(recent-files-initialize)

	It works with Xemacs for win32.




//-----------------------------------------------
//	Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
//	frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: Janos Blazi
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <38b43220_2@goliath.newsfeeds.com>
You are right, I should have asked before as now I have downloaded and
installed such a pckage and it works!
As a matter of fact it will be a part of the next GNU Emacs distributiuon.

Janos Blazi


Fernando <·······@must.die> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··································@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 20:50:57 +0100, "Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de>
> wrote:
>
> >I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of
functionality
> >I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
> >
> >A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most recently. Maybe I just
> >cannot find it.
>
> You should have asked before. ;-)
>
> Add this to your .emacs:
>
> (load "recent-files")
> (recent-files-initialize)
>
> It works with Xemacs for win32.
>
>
>
>
> file://-----------------------------------------------
> // Fernando Rodriguez Romero
> //
> // frr at mindless dot com
> file://------------------------------------------------






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: His Holiness the Reverend Doktor Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <w4oya7xrl81.fsf@nemesis.irtnog.org>
>>>>> "JB" == Janos Blazi <······@netsurf.de> writes:

    JB> I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of
    JB> functionality I'd like to have (and it is in VC):

    JB> A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most
    JB> recently. Maybe I just cannot find it.

I realize this thread is somewhat old, but I just caught this
message.

If you hit M-p and M-n while in the "Find File" minibuffer (e.g. after
typing C-x C-f), you can scroll backwards and forwards through your
minibuffer input history (there may be different history lists for
different kinds of minibuffer input).  I like it a little better than
trying to navigate Emacs' baroque menus, plus I can remain on the
keyboard.

HTH.

-- 
Don't trust these UNIX people.  They are all demons.  They kill their
parents and fork children.  I don't know how they could do this with
their balls cut off but they manage.                        -- anonymous
From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: Are there any LISP development systems that are VC, or other GUI IDE  like?
Date: 
Message-ID: <87og8s6qdb.fsf@2xtreme.net>
"His Holiness the Reverend Doktor Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated" <········@irtnog.org> writes:

> >>>>> "JB" == Janos Blazi <······@netsurf.de> writes:
> 
>     JB> I have been using EMACS for years. Still: there is a piece of
>     JB> functionality I'd like to have (and it is in VC):
> 
>     JB> A list of the (5 to 10) files I worked with most
>     JB> recently. Maybe I just cannot find it.
> 
> I realize this thread is somewhat old, but I just caught this
> message.
> 
> If you hit M-p and M-n while in the "Find File" minibuffer (e.g. after
> typing C-x C-f), you can scroll backwards and forwards through your
> minibuffer input history (there may be different history lists for
> different kinds of minibuffer input).

There are. You can also try M-r (or M-s) to search through your history.

Christopher