I posted here a couple of weeks ago asking what editor everyone
preferred for coding LISP. At the time I was gritting my teeth and
working with GNU Emacs 20.7.1. Then, I tried vi. Without the Lisp
Interaction mode (and being relatively new to LISP) I felt that vi was a
lot work to use. So, I tried a different Emacs than the GNU 20.7.1 I'd
been using... I found XEmacs 21.1 and I like it a lot more. To me, it
was a much nicer environment. The glyphs are dopey, but I like the
interface. Thanks for all the feedback! There was a lot of discussion,
and it made me pay attention to things I wouldn't have known had I not
asked.
~)ason
In article <·················@kioken.com>,
Jason Chesshir <·····@kioken.com> wrote:
>I posted here a couple of weeks ago asking what editor everyone
>preferred for coding LISP. At the time I was gritting my teeth and
>working with GNU Emacs 20.7.1. Then, I tried vi. Without the Lisp
>Interaction mode (and being relatively new to LISP) I felt that vi was a
>lot work to use. So, I tried a different Emacs than the GNU 20.7.1 I'd
>been using... I found XEmacs 21.1 and I like it a lot more. To me, it
>was a much nicer environment. The glyphs are dopey, but I like the
>interface. Thanks for all the feedback! There was a lot of discussion,
>and it made me pay attention to things I wouldn't have known had I not
>asked.
Could you please tell what you found were the
differences between Gnu and XEmacs for the purpose of
Lisp programming? I really wouldn't have guessed
that these two Emacses would differ on a niche this
narrow.
--d
Well, I compared Emacs (in the context of LISP programming) to vi. In
comparison to vi, for LISP, I like Emacs better.
It wasn't the LISP programming environment that I liked better about XEmacs,
per se. The [M-x ielm] environment is basically the same.
Being new to LISP && emacs, however, I found XEmacs a little more
comfortable. The simple (I'm almost afraid to admit) reason was that it had
some elementary LISP commands up front on the menu bar such as:
>Lisp-Interaction
> Evaluate Last S-expression
> Evaluate Entire Buffer
> Evaluate This Defun
The fact that I was able to work in one buffer and evaluate code fragments
without leaving the environment was nice. It just seemed easier than using
the 'rep-like' interface of [M-x ielm]. I am sure there is a simple way to
do this in GNU Emacs, but XEmacs had it up front and out in the open. As a
new XEmacs user, it made my life just a little bit easier.
~)ason
------
>Jason Chesshir <·····@kioken.com> wrote:
>I posted here a couple of weeks ago asking what editor everyone
>preferred for coding LISP. At the time I was gritting my teeth and
>working with GNU Emacs 20.7.1. Then, I tried vi. Without the Lisp
>Interaction mode (and being relatively new to LISP) I felt that vi was a
>lot work to use. So, I tried a different Emacs than the GNU 20.7.1 I'd
>been using... I found XEmacs 21.1 and I like it a lot more. To me, it
>was a much nicer environment. The glyphs are dopey, but I like the
>interface. Thanks for all the feedback! There was a lot of discussion,
>and it made me pay attention to things I wouldn't have known had I not
>asked.
>>Dorai Sitaram <····@goldshoe.gte.com> wrote:
>>Could you please tell what you found were the
>>differences between Gnu and XEmacs for the purpose of
>>Lisp programming? I really wouldn't have guessed
>>that these two Emacses would differ on a niche this
>> narrow.
>>--d
In article <·················@kioken.com>,
Jason Chesshir <·····@kioken.com> wrote:
>Well, I compared Emacs (in the context of LISP programming) to vi. In
>comparison to vi, for LISP, I like Emacs better.
>
>It wasn't the LISP programming environment that I liked better about XEmacs,
>per se. The [M-x ielm] environment is basically the same.
>
>Being new to LISP && emacs, however, I found XEmacs a little more
>comfortable. The simple (I'm almost afraid to admit) reason was that it had
>some elementary LISP commands up front on the menu bar such as:
>
>>Lisp-Interaction
> > Evaluate Last S-expression
> > Evaluate Entire Buffer
> > Evaluate This Defun
Actually, I think this is a very good reason (well, I'd
admit it). I do think a good menu bar is an ideal
add-on for Emacs in a way that it wouldn't be for vi.
The Emacs command (as opposed to extension)
language is long on vocabulary and short on grammar, so
one has to memorize a lot of the former and cannot rely
on the latter to generate combinations as in vi. (For
example, xp is really x followed by p in vi, whereas
the equivalent Emacs C-t is atomic.)
Menus probably bring grammar back into the
picture a bit, and I should think that would alleviate
the burden on memory a lot.
--d
> Being new to LISP && emacs, however, I found XEmacs a little more
> comfortable. The simple (I'm almost afraid to admit) reason was that it had
> some elementary LISP commands up front on the menu bar such as:
Okay. So, for lisp-interaction-mode, what menubar commands do you
find useful? It'll be trivial to write in a menu and submit it as a
bug to GNU Emacs.
joelh