From: ·······@cad.strath.ac.uk
Subject: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <8teodg$mma$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Hello,
I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the address ^^) I think
there are plenty of experts for Lisp and many projects and systems that deals
graphical things. CLIM is quite expensive.. and IDE is very speicialised for
a specific platform only (also only for ACL?). when I saw the IDE of ACL
windows version, I was so glad because it shows me how much easy to
programming.. Probably IDE is not useful for a expert as much as a beginner.
However, for a begineer just like me, IDE is quite useful... (I never seen
CLIM before...) Maybe IDE will prevent to learn more deep Lisp skill or maybe
not, but for me... it is really helpful to *enjoy* Lisp. Lisp.org looks very
large... but is there any effort to build free-CLIM or free-IDE for each
platform?
Sungwoo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:38:41 GMT, ·······@cad.strath.ac.uk wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
>version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the address ^^) I think
There is a free clim project, though I don't know the status. Once
it's finished, it should be easy to build a fancy IDE/RAD.
>graphical things. CLIM is quite expensive.. and IDE is very speicialised for
LispWorks comes with a decent, though ugly IDE, and CLIM for a
reasonable price.
Besides, RADs and fancy IDEs are inherently evil:
http://www.relisoft.com/libs.html
>CLIM before...) Maybe IDE will prevent to learn more deep Lisp skill or maybe
>not, but for me... it is really helpful to *enjoy* Lisp. Lisp.org looks very
>large... but is there any effort to build free-CLIM or free-IDE for each
>platform?
Give emacs a chance: at the begining you'll hate it, but you'll endup
realizing what a powerful and productive tool it is.
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
In article <··································@4ax.com>, Fernando
Rodr?guez <·······@must.die> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:38:41 GMT, ·······@cad.strath.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
> >version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the address ^^) I think
>
> There is a free clim project, though I don't know the status. Once
> it's finished, it should be easy to build a fancy IDE/RAD.
It's as hard as before. You just have now to use CLIM (which is
quite a learning effort).
> >graphical things. CLIM is quite expensive.. and IDE is very speicialised for
>
> LispWorks comes with a decent, though ugly IDE,
I don't think it is too ugly. There are tons of much more uglier
systems for Windows.
> and CLIM for a reasonable price.
> Besides, RADs and fancy IDEs are inherently evil:
> http://www.relisoft.com/libs.html
I don't buy that. I think they were talking more about the
usual Microsoft problem of poor ever changing libraries.
If you look at the system they "stole" most of the ideas
from (Apple's MacApp), then you see that quite a lot
developers gave used MacApp for their advantage.
Common Lisp based libraries often don't have the
problems of C++ based systems (like MFC). Common Lisp
as a langauge already allows easier design of extensible
libraries - read for example the paper about Silica.
R. Rao, Implementational Reflection in Silica, In Proc.
ECOOP'91 European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming,
Geneva, Switzerland,
July 15-19, 1991, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Vol. 512, Springer, 1991, ISBN 3-540-54262-0, pp. 251-267
or the Silica article in:
Paepcke, A. 1993, ed.
Object-oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <39FB829B.D5755251@fisec.com>
"Fernando Rodr�guez" wrote:
> Besides, RADs and fancy IDEs are inherently evil:
> http://www.relisoft.com/libs.html
As far as IDEs are concerned, this link isn't relevant to your claim.
By the way, is emacs not an IDE if you integrate it with your
development image and documentation?
What is it that you can do with emacs and cannot do with the IDE of ACL,
should both be at hand? AFAIK, there are frequently used things that
the IDE does more efficiently than the way emacs does it.
Robert
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:52:57 GMT, Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> wrote:
>"Fernando Rodr�guez" wrote:
>
>> Besides, RADs and fancy IDEs are inherently evil:
>> http://www.relisoft.com/libs.html
>
>As far as IDEs are concerned, this link isn't relevant to your claim.
I really meant the fancy ides that are part of rad tools: the make the
easy things easier, but get in the way of non trivial projects. As a way to
invest your time, I think it's much better to learn one good text editor and
the "windowing api" of your main delivery platform instead f learning how to
circumvent the limitations of n diferent RADs or IDEs.
Besides, IMHO it's better to have your app modularised with the model
and the gui that inspects and modifies that model apart. RADs encourage mixing
everything.
>By the way, is emacs not an IDE if you integrate it with your
>development image and documentation?
Yes, so why bother with something else that doesn't really improve
your productivity? IMHO, it's better to chose a good text editor and _stick_
to it.
>
>What is it that you can do with emacs and cannot do with the IDE of ACL,
>should both be at hand? AFAIK,
You can obviously do the same things, but since programming is still
mostly writting text and not drawing things, a good text exitor is paramount,
and the text editor that comes with ACL IDE is notepad + paren matching.
It's not a matter what you can or you you can't do, it's a matter of
productivity: after all, you could also use edlin to write code...
Call me a weirdo if you want, but right now I'm having to use Borland
Builder and I spend most of the time writting code with XEmacs and only get
into the RAD when absolutely necesary. ;-) I can't stand such a simplistic
text editor, it gets in my way all the time.
//-----------------------------------------------
// Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
// frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <39FCC5A6.8C71C662@fisec.com>
"Fernando Rodr�guez" wrote:
> It's not a matter what you can or you you can't do, it's a matter of
> productivity: after all, you could also use edlin to write code...
It's so obvious that I did not insult readers spelling it out.
> the text editor that comes with ACL IDE is notepad + paren matching.
No, it is a lot more than that. It's decent to the extent that I am
actively trying to see what I am missing by not using emacs. I know of
a few things: The ACL IDE can't browse the web or ftp with it (I use
browsers anyway), it can't connect to a remote machine or edit a remote
file, it can't make it highlight Perl code (which I don't read/write)
etc. I found I can do everyday Lisp development with ACL pretty
efficiently. Moreover, it does certain things that emacs does not or
not as simply.
I think that a lot of people use a particular editor simply because they
think there is no compelling reason to switch. I am looking for such
reasons and even try emacs from time to time. Who knows, maybe I miss a
lot by not preferring emacs, but your answer hasn't quite convinced me
about this :-)
Robert
·······@cad.strath.ac.uk writes:
> not, but for me... it is really helpful to *enjoy* Lisp. Lisp.org looks very
> large... but is there any effort to build free-CLIM or free-IDE for each
> platform?
There is an project trying to implement a free CLIM implementation
http://www2.cons.org/free-clim/
I do not know if any effort for the latter. But you can download
LispWorks from Xanalys. And if you are getting more serious you can
buy a licence which IMHO is well priced.
Regards
Friedrich
--
for e-mail reply remove all after .com
·······@cad.strath.ac.uk writes:
> I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
> version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the address ^^) I think
You have to differentiate between GUI toolkits (i.e. libraries that
allow the programmer to write CL applications that offer a graphical
user interface), like CLIM, and IDEs (i.e. development environments
for a language that have a possibly graphical user interface), like
the ACL Windows IDE. While a CL IDE might be (and almost always is)
itself implemented in CL using that implementations GUI toolkit (like
ACL Windows IDE which uses CG, Franz' GUI toolkit, or the LispWorks
IDE which uses CAPI), IDEs and GUI toolkits are independant of one
another.
On the GUI toolkit side, there are several free toolkits available,
depending on the platform you are working on. See http://www.lisp.de
for links to several of them.
On the IDE side, there is always Emacs (either GNU FSF Emacs or
XEmacs) using either ILISP (see http://ilisp.cons.org/) or Franz' ELI
packages to interface to the underlying Lisp. While this doesn't
offer support for visual GUI development, it will offer great support
for all other aspects of development.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <39FB8CD7.FAC08116@fisec.com>
"Pierre R. Mai" wrote:
> You have to differentiate between GUI toolkits (i.e. libraries that
> allow the programmer to write CL applications that offer a graphical
> user interface), like CLIM, and IDEs (i.e. development environments
> for a language that have a possibly graphical user interface), like
> the ACL Windows IDE. While a CL IDE might be (and almost always is)
> itself implemented in CL using that implementations GUI toolkit (like
> ACL Windows IDE which uses CG, Franz' GUI toolkit, or the LispWorks
> IDE which uses CAPI), IDEs and GUI toolkits are independant of one
> another.
Agreed.
> While [emacs] doesn't
> offer support for visual GUI development, it will offer great support
> for all other aspects of development.
If emacs was more productive than the ACL IDE in general, then it could
be more efficient even for Common Graphics based GUI development. If it
was the other way around, it would be better to use the IDE even for
GUI-less applications. So you could have simply said, "While [emacs]
doesn't offer support for visual development, it will offer great
support for text-based development.". Is it fair to say, or maybe you
think there is a coupling between the concept of visual development
(IDE) and GUI functions? (Beyond obvious reasons responsible for a
correlation, like "Joe prefers both working _with_ and working _on_
visual objects.")
Robert
Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
> > While [emacs] doesn't
> > offer support for visual GUI development, it will offer great support
> > for all other aspects of development.
>
> If emacs was more productive than the ACL IDE in general, then it could
> be more efficient even for Common Graphics based GUI development. If it
> was the other way around, it would be better to use the IDE even for
> GUI-less applications. So you could have simply said, "While [emacs]
> doesn't offer support for visual development, it will offer great
> support for text-based development.". Is it fair to say, or maybe you
> think there is a coupling between the concept of visual development
> (IDE) and GUI functions? (Beyond obvious reasons responsible for a
> correlation, like "Joe prefers both working _with_ and working _on_
> visual objects.")
When I wrote "visual GUI development" above, I meant "visual way of
developing GUIs", and not "developing visual GUIs". I was thinking
about one very specific way of developing GUIs, namely the visual
approach taken by GUI builders, etc., which let you draw GUIs in an
interactive way. Emacs doesn't offer support for this particular
part of developing a GUI application, whereas most GUI IDEs for CL
implementations (like ACL IDE or LispWorks Professional) do
include/integrate a GUI builder.
Since this particular approach should only be a small part of
developing an application, the choice of Emacs vs. another IDE could
be orthogonal, as long as you get enough integration between the GUI
builder and the IDE of choice not to hamper development. I've seen a
couple of languages that have successfully integrated XEmacs and
graphical browsers and editors (e.g. a Z-based constraint programming
environment developed at the TU Berlin).
Personally I find that working with GUI builders is often not the best
approach of developing GUIs, preferring GUI toolkits where you can
specify the semantic parts of a GUI descriptively in a text
file/program code, and let the toolkit worry about the fine visual
detail (e.g. sizes, positioning details, etc.). Ideally there should
then be an additional tool that let's me preview and fine tune the GUI
when polishing the GUI prior to shipment.
This might be compared to the way many graphics artist still prefer
pen and paper to design the rough sketch of a picture/scene, and only
then use a powerful graphics application to produce the final version.
I find that GUI builders make me get too hung up on graphic details
and distracting me from the underlying structure and components.
While graphic details are important to a satisfying user experience
and to usability, this work should be postponed until the final
stages of development, so as to avoid duplicated work and losing the
big picture...
On the topic of Emacs vs. IDEs, I'm personally on the Emacs side of
the fence, given that I like my IDE to include equal support for all
the different languages I'm working in, as well as for Documentation,
Mail, News, Web (W3 + HyperSpec + Erik's hyperspec.el), version
control, bug-tracking, etc. I'm prepared to accept a few trade-offs
in specialised areas of functionality in exchange for this level of
out-of-the-box integration and functionality.
Ideally, I'd prefer an Emacs that _while offering all of the current
functionality_ uses CL as its base language, and integrates better
with the development CL core. But given there isn't such a thing at
the current moment in time (or for the foreseeable future), I'm
staying with Emacs.
Those with other priorities, might find themselves to be more
productive in an environment that is more fully tuned towards
developing CL applications. There are also people who prefer visual
presentations of certain pieces of information, e.g. in the way of
specialised browsers offered by many IDEs. I can understand that, but
for me the value of these browsers is not enough that they make me
want to switch. The value of these browsers probably depends both on
your personal preferences and the amount of foreign code you have to
work with...
Just my two cents (which currently are worth less than $0.02 ;)...
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
In article <··············@orion.bln.pmsf.de>, "Pierre R. Mai"
<····@acm.org> wrote:
> Since this particular approach should only be a small part of
> developing an application, the choice of Emacs vs. another IDE could
> be orthogonal, as long as you get enough integration between the GUI
> builder and the IDE of choice not to hamper development. I've seen a
> couple of languages that have successfully integrated XEmacs and
> graphical browsers and editors (e.g. a Z-based constraint programming
> environment developed at the TU Berlin).
Lucid Emacs originally has been developed for the Energize IDE
- a C++ IDE with lot's of browsers. (Btw., while Lucid CL
is still in use for mission critical apps - who uses
Lucid Energize? ;-) ).
> Personally I find that working with GUI builders is often not the best
> approach of developing GUIs, preferring GUI toolkits where you can
> specify the semantic parts of a GUI descriptively in a text
> file/program code, and let the toolkit worry about the fine visual
> detail (e.g. sizes, positioning details, etc.). Ideally there should
> then be an additional tool that let's me preview and fine tune the GUI
> when polishing the GUI prior to shipment.
This is especially the case for CLIM. CLIM is taking descriptions
of GUIs to the extreme.
Given that the visual capabilities of people is so advanced,
one can not underestimate the power of visual tools for
programming. Since a long time it is clear that it
is for example much easier to fill out a form, than
remembering options for textual commands. One
of the problems of most CL environments is, that they
don't give the programmer enough context information -
information lookup should be as cheap as possible - possibly done
by the system in the background.
Description languages for GUIs tend to get complicated
and then one constantly is looking up examples and
manual descriptions - instead of just drawing things
and filling out a few forms. Something like programming
"wizards" (the MS term, Apple would say "assistents").
I also think that software visualization tools are
*necessary* for large scale software development.
I guess many Emacs use are so used to the "textual"
mindset of programming that they can't imagine
how a more graphical system might work or how they
would use it.
> This might be compared to the way many graphics artist still prefer
> pen and paper to design the rough sketch of a picture/scene, and only
> then use a powerful graphics application to produce the final version.
Using the right interfaces (graphic tablets, and the like)
are a good way to support graphics artists. One of the
coolest gadgets is the wacom tablet with the built-in
TFT. http://www.wacom.com/lcdtablets/pl500.html
> I find that GUI builders make me get too hung up on graphic details
> and distracting me from the underlying structure and components.
> While graphic details are important to a satisfying user experience
> and to usability, this work should be postponed until the final
> stages of development, so as to avoid duplicated work and losing the
> big picture...
But how general is this? You are a programmer and you are
used to this kind of work. Imagine you were working
with a Xerox Lisp machine, where you had a really
graphical Lisp environment...
***Years*** ago I was reading the article by Sandewall.
It was from a different world. When the Xerox guys had
their InterLisp-D environment, I was using a printer (!)
terminal attached to a DEC 10 at the local university.
This is actually one of the classic Lisp articles (IMHO) -
unfortunately I don't know any online version.
E. Sandewall
Programming in an Interactive Environment: The LISP Experience
@incollection{Sandewall84,
AUTHOR = {E. Sandewall},
TITLE = {Programming in an Interactive Environment: The LISP Experience},
YEAR = 1984,
BOOKTITLE = {Interactive Programming Environments},
EDITOR = {D. R. Barstow and H. E. Shrobe and E. Sandewall},
PUBLISHER = {McGraw-Hill},
ADDRESS = {New York},
PAGES = {31-80},
KEYWORDS = {}}
Or:
Sandewall, E. (1978).
Programming in the Interactive Environment: The Lisp Experience.
Computing Surveys, 10(1):35--71.
Or:
W. Teitelman and L. Masinter
The Interlisp Programming Environment
@incollection{Teitelman:84,
AUTHOR = {W. Teitelman and L. Masinter},
TITLE = {The Interlisp Programming Environment},
YEAR = 1984,
BOOKTITLE = {Interactive Programming Environments},
EDITOR = {D. R. Barstow and H. E. Shrobe and E. Sandewall},
PUBLISHER = {McGraw-Hill},
ADDRESS = {New York},
PAGES = {83-96},
KEYWORDS = {}}
> On the topic of Emacs vs. IDEs, I'm personally on the Emacs side of
> the fence, given that I like my IDE to include equal support for all
> the different languages I'm working in, as well as for Documentation,
> Mail, News, Web (W3 + HyperSpec + Erik's hyperspec.el), version
> control, bug-tracking, etc. I'm prepared to accept a few trade-offs
> in specialised areas of functionality in exchange for this level of
> out-of-the-box integration and functionality.
MCL for example does most that, too. But the approach
is to integrate outside applications and let them
do their thing (the Mac has an extensive mechanism
to control applications and to access their inner objects).
- HyperSpec: c-x f uses a running web browser to display
the info for any CL symbol.
- Documentation: c-x d brings up a MCL window to see the doc.
- version control: MCL interfaces to "Source Server".
- Mail reading? : c-sh-e brings Eudora to the front, c-option-command
brings MCL back to the front. If one want,
MCL could ask Eudora for all mails in
a certain folder, get the content, send
a mail, ...
Etc.
> Ideally, I'd prefer an Emacs that _while offering all of the current
> functionality_ uses CL as its base language, and integrates better
> with the development CL core. But given there isn't such a thing at
> the current moment in time (or for the foreseeable future), I'm
> staying with Emacs.
How about a bit of CMUCL/Hemlock hacking?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <39FCD0E3.1825E0AC@fisec.com>
"Pierre R. Mai" wrote:
> When I wrote "visual GUI development" above, I meant "visual way of
> developing GUIs", and not "developing visual GUIs".
I thought it so. It seems like you side with a text-based IDE, be it
GUI or other development.
> On the topic of Emacs vs. IDEs, I'm personally on the Emacs side of
> the fence, given that I like my IDE to include equal support for all
> the different languages I'm working in, as well as for Documentation,
> Mail, News, Web (W3 + HyperSpec + Erik's hyperspec.el), version
> control, bug-tracking, etc. I'm prepared to accept a few trade-offs
> in specialised areas of functionality in exchange for this level of
> out-of-the-box integration and functionality.
What is it that you gain with this integration? Netscape is easy to
switch to if you run it in parallel with Lisp. This is besides my
opinion that W3 as a browser is lacking in several areas relative to
other browsers. The Hyperspec is easily available from the IDE, and so
are the documents of the implementation. There are quite good source
control tools, too.
Also, how truly out-of-the-box is your setup? When I tried emacs, it
required countless hours just to get up to speed with general use and
keyboard shortcuts, and do some basic setup. I figured that it takes
many days or weeks to learn elisp to the extent that I feel comfortable
configuring it, and to try all the packages others contributed, and even
then the outcome is fairly uncertain, as far as functionality I need is
concerned.
During many years of reading c.l.l., I keep hearing how great emacs is,
and it is preferred by a lot of people I respect. I even try it
sometimes to moderate effect, always faced with the time it would take
to master it, and can't see a lot of benefits of doing that. What are
the great things I have missed hearing about?
Thanks,
Robert
From: Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <w4owverynyf.fsf@lovecraft.irtnog.org>
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
Robert> What are the great things I have missed hearing about?
What sold me on Emacs was its easy integration with SCCS, RCS, and
CVS. It just works---no mucking about in .emacs.
Query replace regexp is wonderful.
It would be nice if Emacs could do the little syntax popup window like
Visual C++ does, but Erik's wonderful hyperspec.el program (bound on
C-c C-h) works nearly as well for Lisp.
The web-browser-in-an-editor argument is more persuasive if memory
usage is important to you. Emacs + W3 (with lots of pages loaded in
via hyperspec.el) is under 15 megabytes of memory, whereas newly
started Emacs and Internet Explorer instances add to just under 20
megabytes on my machine (Windows 2000).
My .emacs file has steadily shrunk over the past few years. The
new customization facility has helped a lot, I think, and Emacs'
defaults are sensible. I seriously doubt even a moderately
experienced Emacs user needs to frob much more than a handful of
variables (and most of those are probably related to custom editing
modes or abbrevs). And I hear that XEmacs' GUI is really nice,
especially for new users.
I still don't use half the features of Emacs. For instance, abbrevs.
Or even all the word/paragraph/sexp-movement commands. Heck, I don't
even use the transpose-whatever commands all that often,
backspace-backspace-rekey is faster than remembering I can do C-t. :)
But the real reason I prefer Emacs is because my buddy Alan Shutko
said, "Check this editor out, it is amazingly cool." This was back
in 1994, we were all just getting in to Linux and UNIX, and VI was
just too damned difficult to figure out.
:) :) :)
--
"Remember - if all you have is an axe, every problem looks like hours of fun."
-- Frossie in the monastery
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <39FE3C76.29951554@fisec.com>
"Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
>
> Robert> What are the great things I have missed hearing about?
>
> What sold me on Emacs was its easy integration with SCCS, RCS, and
> CVS. It just works---no mucking about in .emacs.
Point taken.
> Query replace regexp is wonderful.
I never needed it. A sexpr based pattern matching search would be cool,
but there might be better tools (like xref:who-calls, or some ad-hoc
function).
> It would be nice if Emacs could do the little syntax popup window like
> Visual C++ does, but Erik's wonderful hyperspec.el program (bound on
> C-c C-h) works nearly as well for Lisp.
As you type space after the function name, ACL displays the arglist
(unfortunately the first 7-8 only). Hit F1 and read the spec (which I
wish was linked to implementational notes and extensions).
> The web-browser-in-an-editor argument is more persuasive if memory
> usage is important to you. Emacs + W3 (with lots of pages loaded in
> via hyperspec.el) is under 15 megabytes of memory, whereas newly
> started Emacs and Internet Explorer instances add to just under 20
> megabytes on my machine (Windows 2000).
I work with machines with at least 192MB RAM (and that's my old
laptop). Memory is *dirt cheap* relative to other hardware costs,
licenses and your time. W3 cannot handle certain types of web pages, so
there would be a need to start a browser anyway.
> I still don't use half the features of Emacs. For instance, abbrevs.
> Or even all the word/paragraph/sexp-movement commands.
So the one who despises the IDE uses emacs as a notepad with paren
matching :-) FYI, the ACL IDE gives you common sexpr operations like
selection, skip, delete etc. ACL IDE has incremental search, quick
function and *method* lookup (I wish it was recursive) and symbol
completion (which should be more like emacs, not the inefficient a-z
selection). Class browsers and recursing inspectors are also at your
disposal.
Thanks,
Robert
From: Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <w4oog01yxit.fsf@lovecraft.irtnog.org>
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> writes:
Robert> As you type space after the function name, ACL displays
Robert> the arglist (unfortunately the first 7-8 only). Hit F1
Robert> and read the spec (which I wish was linked to
Robert> implementational notes and extensions).
Certainly, the context-sensitive editors in Visual C++ and Allegro CL
are a wonderful thing. While I've never used a Lisp machine, it is my
understanding that the structure editors on some of them were also
context-sensitive.
Robert> I work with machines with at least 192MB RAM (and that's
Robert> my old laptop).
Point taken. Most of the hardware around the house is fairly old. I
also do a lot of work in terminal mode, hence the reliance on W3.
Robert> hardware costs, licenses and your time. W3 cannot handle
Robert> certain types of web pages, so there would be a need to
Robert> start a browser anyway.
Completely true.
I think the real reason I like Emacs so much is because I'm an
integration freak. :)
Robert> So the one who despises the IDE uses emacs as a notepad
Robert> with paren matching :-)
I wasn't the one who said IDEs were evil. Class browsers and better
integration with a language implementation are a Good Thing. Although
Emacs char/word/para/sexp editing commands (the ones I use) are so
burned into my brane that I miss it when other editors don't provide
as many useful commands.
BUT: sadly enough, one of the first hacks I installed on my Palm was a
paren-matcher. :)
Also, sadly, I don't do a whole lot of programming. I use Emacs
mostly for Gnus, my favorite news/mail reader.
--
"Remember - if all you have is an axe, every problem looks like hours of fun."
-- Frossie in the monastery
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <8u8913$44g$1@news.panix.com>
In article <···············@lovecraft.irtnog.org>,
Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated <········@irtnog.org> wrote:
> <snip>
>Also, sadly, I don't do a whole lot of programming. I use Emacs
>mostly for Gnus, my favorite news/mail reader.
>
Have you tried trn (newest version)?
If not, do.
If you have, please detail a comparison between trn
and gnus.
THANKS!
David
·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> >Also, sadly, I don't do a whole lot of programming. I use Emacs
> >mostly for Gnus, my favorite news/mail reader.
> >
>
> Have you tried trn (newest version)?
>
> If not, do.
>
> If you have, please detail a comparison between trn
> and gnus.
I havn't tried trn, but I get this funny feeling that it can't come
close to Gnus. But even if it did, and was faster, as customizable,
better interface,...whatever, it's not part of (X)Emacs, and _that's_
a weakness. It's nice to have mail and news inside your editor.
dave
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:30:10 GMT, Robert Monfera <·······@fisec.com> wrote:
> As you type space after the function name, ACL displays the arglist
> (unfortunately the first 7-8 only). Hit F1 and read the spec (which I
> wish was linked to implementational notes and extensions).
ILISP provides similar features, and I guess also Franz's ELI for Emacs.
> licenses and your time. W3 cannot handle certain types of web pages, so
> there would be a need to start a browser anyway.
This may actually be a feature: if a Web page is too crowded with
multimedia and layout gadgets, it's probably not worth reading it :)
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
From: ······@corporate-world.lisp.de
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <8tfan5$45i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
·······@cad.strath.ac.uk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
> version?
Hello,
CLIM is a User Interface Management System (UIMS). It handles the
all the aspects of building user interfaces. Since it is based on
CLOS and abstracts many ideas found in User Interfaces, it
is quite general and complex. CLIM also aims to be portable
accross several underlying windows systems (there are versions
for X11, Genera, MacOS and Windows).
There are other systems that are on this level: Garnet,
CLX+CLUE+CLIO, CLIM, and many others. MCL for example
has its own UIMS. A few people have developed libraries
that makes porting from MCL to ACL easier - they
replicate the MCL view system on Windows.
An IDE is a general term: an Integrated Development Environment.
I would understand this to be a development environment that
enables the developer to write code (or even "draw" code),
compile/load/execute Lisp code, use debuggers and inspectors,
etc. It integrates all development activities into one
**application**: the Integrated Development Environment.
So CLIM and an IDE are two different things. One could
use CLIM to build an IDE. You can compare CLIM partly
with things like MacApp+QuickDraw or parts of MFC.
In case one would have a completed Free CLIM (a project
in the works), one could write a free, more
complex, development environment on top of that.
Several IDEs are in use by Lisp users. The most
complex are the Lisp machine's IDE's. ACL on the PC,
ACL on Unix, LispWorks, MCL, Corman Lisp, etc. have
others. LispWorks' IDE for example runs in LispWorks
for Windows and Unix and also in Liquid Common Lisp.
MCL for example has been used to develop several IDEs
for languages/systems on top of or attached to MCL.
The usual "free" IDE is ILisp+(X)Emacs. CMU CL has another one
that is based on its integrated editor (Hemlock). I guess
there are some others.
Rainer Joswig
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:38:41 GMT, ·······@cad.strath.ac.uk wrote:
> I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL windows
> version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the address ^^) I think
You may check the Free CLIM project, which is making some progress:
Source code tarballs
http://www.mikemac.com/mikemac/McCLIM/index.html
Anonymous CVS (password: FreeCLIM)
············@saturn.mikemac.com:/home/depot
Mailing list
http://www2.cons.org:8000/mailman/listinfo/free-clim
Mailing list archives
http://www2.cons.org:8000/pipermail/free-clim/
http://www3.cons.org/maillists/free-clim (old messages)
Note that the site http://www2.cons.org/free-clim/ mentioned in another
message of this thread may provide out of date information.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3em0z5vcf.fsf@cley.com>
* sungwoo wrote:
> Hello,
> I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL
> windows version? (if it exist.. forgive me, and plz give me the
> address ^^) I think there are plenty of experts for Lisp and many
> projects and systems that deals graphical things. CLIM is quite
> expensive..
CLIM is expensive because it's *very* complex to implement correctly,
and thus is hard work to maintain, especially so as the code ages. I
personally think that it's considerably too complex, and that it
really ought to be possible to design a less hairy system which
provides the same stuff that CLIM does.
That being said there is a free-CLIM project, and it may be that they
will succeed in producing a less hairy, & hence more maintainable,
implementation than the original one.
--tim
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: why there are no free-CLIM or free-IDE?
Date:
Message-ID: <3181888931569122@naggum.net>
* ·······@cad.strath.ac.uk
| I just wonder that why there is no free CLIM or free IDE like a ACL
| windows version?
Because it takes a lot more work than people have been willing to
put up, quite simply. This means that it most probably pays better
to purchase the software than to build it. Keeping in mind that
most free software is built by students who are not likely to make
any real money (for anyone), anyway, it is most common to find free
tools where free labor is available, too. The darth of free Lisp
stuff is most probably caused by the fact that most Lisp programmers
are much older than most of the other language's programmers, having
graduated into Common Lisp from their early languages.
Those who discover Common Lisp at a time when they are unable to pay
the full price for a commercial license are actually lucky. It
takes most programmers a lot more time to discover Common Lisp than
that, such as having had to work with really painful tools, very
slow development processes, etc. Many languages are sort of
catching up, but Common Lisp and its environments are still years
ahead of the pack in many ways. I'm not sure the increasing numbers
of younger users are sufficient to make the necessary dents in the
relevant statistics, though.
#:Erik
--
Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One?
-- George W. Bush