Hello,
Our chair is going to buy a new lisp system for Linux. Up to now, we
have been using Franz ACL, but LispWorks seems to have several
advantages:
- IDE with a useable debugger,
- No extra fees for distribution of executables,
- lower price.
Could those people who have experience with one of these systems please
add their pros and cons?
Thanks in advance,
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Hladik" <···@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: ACL vs. LispWorks
> Hello,
>
> Our chair is going to buy a new lisp system for Linux. Up to now, we
> have been using Franz ACL, but LispWorks seems to have several
> advantages:
>
> - IDE with a useable debugger,
> - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
> - lower price.
And an improved performance with regard to execution speed. What I had seen
the last years has been the fact that AL Common Lisp is the power-horse.
But with LispWorks 4.2 there is absolutely no reason that the beformentioned
will stay valid (it is even that on matrix manipulations LispWorks is about
2 times faster than Allegro CL; but pay caution to that: there are only a
few micro benchmarks which suggest this).
Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one (the
LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one want to work
with; but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody should
use; okay: your question was Unix specific and maybe you like Emacs).
S. Gonzi
In article <·················@hagakure.utanet.at>, Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
> Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one (the
> LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one want to work
> with; but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody should
> use; okay: your question was Unix specific and maybe you like Emacs).
Sounds as if you're a vi user. Right?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
····················@ID-125440.news.dfncis.de...
> In article <·················@hagakure.utanet.at>, Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
> > Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one (the
> > LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one want to
work
> > with; but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody
should
> > use; okay: your question was Unix specific and maybe you like Emacs).
>
> Sounds as if you're a vi user. Right?
No, absolutely not. I tried vi but that beeping is somewhat insane.
Normaly I write my small programs (1000 lines of code + comments) in simple
editors (e.g. the Windows Editor; on the Macintosh I had used BEedit but
without ever learning any shortcuts). In Lisp an editor is indispensable; I
am quite comfortable with the AL CommonLisp Editor. But want to become a
friend of LispWorks due to the LispWorks installation on my computer in my
cube at the university.
Sometimes I use Emacs (but only under torture) and then I use only the mouse
and the 4 buttons with arrows on my right.
I did grasp that Verona F. will never become a nobel price winner but I
haven't understand why the tug-of-war between vi and Emacs.
Regards,
S. Gonzi
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
[snip]
> on the Macintosh I had used BEedit but without ever learning any
> shortcuts
[snip]
> Sometimes I use Emacs (but only under torture) and then I use only
> the mouse and the 4 buttons with arrows on my right.
It usually pays to know your tools. Maybe you should take a look at
Robert Strandh's interesting observations:
<http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~strandh/Teaching/MTP/Common/Strandh-Tutorial/psychology.html>
Edi.
"Dr. Edmund Weitz" <···@agharta.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
···················@bird.agharta.de...
> "Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
> It usually pays to know your tools. Maybe you should take a look at
> Robert Strandh's interesting observations:
>
>
<http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~strandh/Teaching/MTP/Common/Strandh-T
utorial/psychology.html>
Thank you for the link (I actually know it). His observation is not far away
from the reality. But often I find things really counter-intuitive and try
to avoid them.
Regards,
S. Gonzi
In article <·················@hagakure.utanet.at>, Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
>
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ····················@ID-125440.news.dfncis.de...
>> In article <·················@hagakure.utanet.at>, Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
>> > Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one (the
>> > LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one want to
> work
>> > with; but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody
> should
>> > use; okay: your question was Unix specific and maybe you like Emacs).
>>
>> Sounds as if you're a vi user. Right?
>
> No, absolutely not. I tried vi but that beeping is somewhat insane.
[snip]
> Sometimes I use Emacs (but only under torture) and then I use only the mouse
> and the 4 buttons with arrows on my right.
I was joking, actually; sorry. Seriously, you should learn to use a
powerful editor. It pays, it really does. Emacs and vi are *very*
powerful editors; in fact, Emacs is one of the most powerful pieces
of software ever written. Learning to use such a tool takes some
time, of course; but I promise you won't regret it.
P.S.: If you hit C-h T in Emacs you get a very nice tutorial to
get you started :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
>>>>> "NG" == Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
[...]
NG> P.S.: If you hit C-h T in Emacs you get a very nice tutorial
NG> to get you started :-) [...]
And googling for "Emacs Cheat Sheet" might also be useful. I know _ONE_
person who actually liked the tutorial, and more than a handful who
went the cheat sheet route.
cheers,
BM
In article <··············@nkapi.internal>, Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>> "NG" == Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> [...]
> NG> P.S.: If you hit C-h T in Emacs you get a very nice tutorial
> NG> to get you started :-) [...]
>
> And googling for "Emacs Cheat Sheet" might also be useful. I know _ONE_
> person who actually liked the tutorial,
Including me?
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
>>>>> "NG" == Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
[...]
BM> And googling for "Emacs Cheat Sheet" might also be useful. I
BM> know _ONE_ person who actually liked the tutorial,
NG> Including me?
Good to hear! Did I evangelize emacs to you and hounded you until you
tried it? That's what I meant when I gave those figures.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> >>>>> "NG" == Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> [...]
> NG> P.S.: If you hit C-h T in Emacs you get a very nice tutorial
> NG> to get you started :-) [...]
>
> And googling for "Emacs Cheat Sheet" might also be useful. I know _ONE_
> person who actually liked the tutorial, and more than a handful who
> went the cheat sheet route.
Yet another option is reading sample.init.el that comes with XEmacs. It's
well written, and has a lot of information many people want when coming to
Emacs, both the first days and the following weeks. It also caters well to
win32 users. I wish I had it when I first tried Emacs.
I couldn't find it online so I put it here to lessen the threshold:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~reneky/sample.init.el
-- Ren�
ps: followup set
pps: reading the following in the tutorial really makes me wonder what the
target audience is:
* INSERTING AND DELETING
------------------------
If you want to insert text, just type the text. Characters which you
can see, such as A, 7, *, etc. are taken by Emacs as text and inserted
immediately. Type <Return> (the carriage-return key) to insert a
Newline character.
You can delete the last character you typed by typing <Delete>.
<Delete> is a key on the keyboard, which may be labeled "Del". In
some cases, the "Backspace" key serves as <Delete>, but not always!
More generally, <Delete> deletes the character immediately before the
current cursor position.
>> Do this now--type a few characters, then delete them
by typing <Delete> a few times. Don't worry about this file
being changed; you will not alter the master tutorial. This is
your personal copy of it.
Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ····················@ID-125440.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>In article <·················@hagakure.utanet.at>, Siegfried Gonzi wrote:
>>
>>>Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one (the
>>>LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one want to
>>>
> work
>
>>>with; but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody
>>>
> should
>
>>>use; okay: your question was Unix specific and maybe you like Emacs).
>>>
>>Sounds as if you're a vi user. Right?
>>
>
> No, absolutely not. I tried vi but that beeping is somewhat insane.
>
> Normaly I write my small programs (1000 lines of code + comments) in simple
> editors (e.g. the Windows Editor; on the Macintosh I had used BEedit but
> without ever learning any shortcuts). In Lisp an editor is indispensable; I
> am quite comfortable with the AL CommonLisp Editor. But want to become a
> friend of LispWorks due to the LispWorks installation on my computer in my
> cube at the university.
>
> Sometimes I use Emacs (but only under torture) and then I use only the mouse
> and the 4 buttons with arrows on my right.
If all you do not like is the keybindings why don't you set it up the
way that fits best with your style of editing?
In my old Amiga days I used "GoldEd" which was a really nice and highly
configurable editor suited for programmers.
After I switched to NetBSD I tried several editors but Emacs was simply
too big for the machine I used (Eight Megabytes Always Continuously
Swapping...).
I settled down to "NEdit" which was alot smaller than Emacs but offered
syntax-highlighting and a bit support for indenting too.
A while later I bought a faster machine and gave XEmacs another try.
First I could only very slowly get used to the key choords in Emacs -
but I tried and tried so after a while I realized that I really liked
the way Emacs "feels".
I'm getting annoyed everytime I have to use an editor like those crappy
"Wordpad" or "Windows notepad" ones or even the ones coming with IDEs
like VisualXYZ...
Emacs just gets indenting right - I enjoy simply hitting "tab" and
knowing that my code is properly indented. Newer MS IDEs seem to offer
automatic indentation too but instead of letting you the final choice
they enforce the indentation at a whole. Emacs is just the right mix of
automation and user-choice.
I have to say that for me "Emacs" ist not a particular program but more
a concept of how an editor should feel like. Therefore LispWorks
integrated Editor is an "Emacs" for me and is now a complete replacement
for my former XEmacs/ILisp setting.
> I did grasp that Verona F. will never become a nobel price winner but I
> haven't understand why the tug-of-war between vi and Emacs.
"Blubb" ;-)
ciao,
Jochen
Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de> writes:
> I'm getting annoyed everytime I have to use an editor like those
> crappy "Wordpad" or "Windows notepad" ones or even the ones coming
> with IDEs like VisualXYZ... Emacs just gets indenting right - I
> enjoy simply hitting "tab" and knowing that my code is properly
> indented.
You can even drop the TAB key in many situations:
(global-set-key (kbd "RET") 'newline-and-indent)
(define-key text-mode-map (kbd "RET") 'newline)
> ciao,
> Jochen
Ciao, Nicolas.
"Jochen Schmidt" <···@dataheaven.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
·····················@dataheaven.de...
> I have to say that for me "Emacs" ist not a particular program but more
> a concept of how an editor should feel like. Therefore LispWorks
> integrated Editor is an "Emacs" for me and is now a complete replacement
> for my former XEmacs/ILisp setting.
How can you do the following in the LispWorks listener:
1. (defun silly-function (x)
2. After pressing Return/Enter I want the cursor-block in the next line and
properly indented:
(defun silly-function (x)
(+ 2 3 x))
and not:
(defun silly-function (x)
(+ 2 3 x))
AL CommonLisp performs the former one but I haven't figured it out how to do
it in LispWorks.
And the second story which bothers me in LispWorks:
After completing a function:
(defun silly-function (x)
(+ 2 3 x))
How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
listener)?:
(defun silly-function (x)
(let ((d 0))
(+ 2 3 d x)))
AL CommonLisp is willing to help me; but everytime when I move the cursor in
the LispWorks listener to a place inside the function and press Return I
only end with the same function in the next listener. I am sure there is a
better way in LispWorks as the detour: changing the function in the editor
and then copying it back to the listener.
Over the weekend I wrote part of my Clean code new in Lisp, and may not
think of the nightmare being forced by someone to use LispWorks for this
undertaking. I would like to use LispWorks but:
This is what I mean: Allegro CommonLisp has got the far better environment
(at least for me). I would even trade the improved LispWorks performance and
lower price only to get Allegro CommonLisp, if I were about to spend money
for a Lisp environment and would have to decide whether AL CommonLisp or
LispWorks.
[My LispWorks settings: Windows editor emulation]
S. Gonzi
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> wrote in message
·················@newsreader1.netway.at...
>
> How can you do the following in the LispWorks listener:
>
> 1. (defun silly-function (x)
Why?
> 2. After pressing Return/Enter I want the cursor-block in the next line
and
> properly indented:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
*snip*
>
> How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> listener)?:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (let ((d 0))
> (+ 2 3 d x)))
>
*snip*
>
> [My LispWorks settings: Windows editor emulation]
>
Under Emacs emulation the default for ALT-J is to
insert a properly indented newline at the cursor
Personally I don't mind hitting TAB when I want
proper indentation.
Under Windows emulation CTRL-E CTRL-J does it.
RTFM->"Editor User Guide" and the lisp files in
the config directory, specifically msw-key-binds.lisp
I assume you're using 4.2 :-)
Geoff
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> wrote in message
·················@newsreader1.netway.at...
> "Jochen Schmidt" <···@dataheaven.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ·····················@dataheaven.de...
>
> > I have to say that for me "Emacs" ist not a particular program but more
> > a concept of how an editor should feel like. Therefore LispWorks
> > integrated Editor is an "Emacs" for me and is now a complete replacement
> > for my former XEmacs/ILisp setting.
>
> How can you do the following in the LispWorks listener:
>
> 1. (defun silly-function (x)
>
> 2. After pressing Return/Enter I want the cursor-block in the next line
and
> properly indented:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> and not:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
Hit tab, as in the editor, it will indent it.
>
> And the second story which bothers me in LispWorks:
>
> After completing a function:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> listener)?:
>
This bites me too. I swear I found a key combo that did insert a newline
rather than evaluate or jump to the end (in the case of an unfinished sexp)
but I don't recall what it was! It may have been an Emacs command for
newline but I don't recal that either at the moment...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
> AL CommonLisp is willing to help me; but everytime when I move the cursor in
> the LispWorks listener to a place inside the function and press Return I
> only end with the same function in the next listener.
C-q C-j.
ILISP has the same problem.
--
Regards,
Alexey Dejneka
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
> How can you do the following in the LispWorks listener:
>
> 1. (defun silly-function (x)
>
> 2. After pressing Return/Enter I want the cursor-block in the next line and
> properly indented:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> and not:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
See Nils Goesche's posting from a couple of days ago:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=a3caq9%24166aaj%241%40ID-125440.news.dfncis.de&hl=en>
> AL CommonLisp performs the former one but I haven't figured it out how to do
> it in LispWorks.
>
> And the second story which bothers me in LispWorks:
>
> After completing a function:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> listener)?:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (let ((d 0))
> (+ 2 3 d x)))
>
> AL CommonLisp is willing to help me; but everytime when I move the cursor in
> the LispWorks listener to a place inside the function and press Return I
> only end with the same function in the next listener. I am sure there is a
> better way in LispWorks as the detour: changing the function in the editor
> and then copying it back to the listener.
With Emacs key bindings you can use CRTL-Q CTRL-J to insert a Newline
character. Don't know how to do this with Wintendo key bindings.
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> listener)?:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (let ((d 0))
> (+ 2 3 d x)))
I would move the cursor just before the expression (+ 2 3 x) and then
do the magical incantation -- M-1 M-( let M-( M-( d <space> 0 M-) M-)
C-M-d C-M-f C-M-f C-M-f <space> d -- and that's it. For this to work
you would need the M-) to work like in Emacs (see recent posts -- I
think someone posted the code to make LispWorks behave that way).
> AL CommonLisp is willing to help me; but everytime when I move the cursor in
> the LispWorks listener to a place inside the function and press Return I
> only end with the same function in the next listener. I am sure there is a
> better way in LispWorks as the detour: changing the function in the editor
> and then copying it back to the listener.
Just do the editing in editor, and then use C-M-x to evaluate the
current form (or get a context menu and choose something else).
> Over the weekend I wrote part of my Clean code new in Lisp, and may not
> think of the nightmare being forced by someone to use LispWorks for this
> undertaking. I would like to use LispWorks but:
>
> This is what I mean: Allegro CommonLisp has got the far better environment
> (at least for me). I would even trade the improved LispWorks performance and
> lower price only to get Allegro CommonLisp, if I were about to spend money
> for a Lisp environment and would have to decide whether AL CommonLisp or
> LispWorks.
You'd better spend more time learning the environment. It's worth the
time investment.
--
Janis Dzerins
Eat shit -- billions of flies can't be wrong.
Siegfried Gonzi <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> wrote:
...
> And the second story which bothers me in LispWorks:
>
> After completing a function:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (+ 2 3 x))
>
> How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> listener)?:
>
> (defun silly-function (x)
> (let ((d 0))
> (+ 2 3 d x)))
M-j can be used for inserting new lines under the Linux version.
...
Aleksandr Skobelev <·········@mail.ru> writes:
> Siegfried Gonzi <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > And the second story which bothers me in LispWorks:
> >
> > After completing a function:
> >
> > (defun silly-function (x)
> > (+ 2 3 x))
> >
> > How can I insert some new stuff into the function (in the LispWorks
> > listener)?:
> >
> > (defun silly-function (x)
> > (let ((d 0))
> > (+ 2 3 d x)))
>
> M-j can be used for inserting new lines under the Linux version.
Or if what you mean is how can you get the prior expression back, try
meta-p (same gesture as with Gnu Emacs shell mode and other command
contexts), which cycles through previous inputs, yanking them into the
current input buffer. Then you can just edit them directly.
Also, again like in Gnu Emacs, LispWorks has c-m-q, which will re-indent
the balanced parenthetical expression in front of your cursor. This is
good if you find that your interactively typed expression is getting
out of hand visually.
And also, even though it violates the Temporal Prime Directive, you can
just go back up in the LispWorks window, edit the expression in place
(changing your visual record of history) and then press Enter to cause the
expression you've been editing to get copied to the waiting command line.
You have to press a second Enter to activate it. Better, though, and less
likely to get you arrested by the Time Cops is to press Enter on the prior
expression before doing any editing, then edit the expression in-place
where it has been copied to your new command line.
Finally, you can also use some cut-and-paste operation or another (there
are many) to grab the expression you want and then use c-x c-f to find a
file to put it in and then yank it into there to be edited. Use
control-shift-c to compile it in the editor buffer when you have it how
you like. c-x o can be used to move from the lisp to the editor once
the editor window is created (it's a pity c-x o doesn't take you back;
I've bug-reported this).
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@shell01.TheWorld.com...
>
> Also, again like in Gnu Emacs, LispWorks has c-m-q, which will re-indent
> the balanced parenthetical expression in front of your cursor.
or the expression immediately behind, whish is often more convenient.
>
> you like. c-x o can be used to move from the lisp to the editor once
> the editor window is created (it's a pity c-x o doesn't take you back;
> I've bug-reported this).
I've been pining for a key-combo to jump to the listener too, it is very
conspicuous in its absence! or indeed any way to just cycle through the LW
windows.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
> ····················@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> >
> > Also, again like in Gnu Emacs, LispWorks has c-m-q, which will re-indent
> > the balanced parenthetical expression in front of your cursor.
>
> or the expression immediately behind, whish is often more convenient.
>
> >
> > you like. c-x o can be used to move from the lisp to the editor once
> > the editor window is created (it's a pity c-x o doesn't take you back;
> > I've bug-reported this).
>
> I've been pining for a key-combo to jump to the listener too, it is very
> conspicuous in its absence!
c-z would be the right keystroke for that, though some argument could
be made for c-x c-c (which right now tries to exit LW, something I
think doesn't need to be on so short a command sequence).
Send a bug report / feature-request. (Tell them I'd like this, too. :-)
I vote for c-z because it presently has no meaning but means suspend-emacs
in Gnu Emacs, which is roughly conceptually the same as what we're
asking for.
> or indeed any way to just cycle through the LW windows.
Well, c-x o will cycle through just the editor windows, though I
guess that's not what you meant.
And on the PC, ALT-TAB will cycle through all of your windows (not
just LW, of course). Dunno if the various window managers for Linux have
an equivalent keyboard command.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
>
> And on the PC, ALT-TAB will cycle through all of your windows (not
> just LW, of course). Dunno if the various window managers for Linux have
> an equivalent keyboard command.
And Ctrl-Tab will cycle through the windows of the current application
(at least usually). It works in LispWorks for Windows.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Carl Gay" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote in message
······················@mediaone.net...
> Kent M Pitman wrote:
> >
> > And on the PC, ALT-TAB will cycle through all of your windows (not
> > just LW, of course). Dunno if the various window managers for Linux
have
> > an equivalent keyboard command.
>
> And Ctrl-Tab will cycle through the windows of the current application
> (at least usually). It works in LispWorks for Windows.
And we have a winner! Thank you I will keep that one....
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
> > or indeed any way to just cycle through the LW windows.
>
> Well, c-x o will cycle through just the editor windows, though I
> guess that's not what you meant.
>
> And on the PC, ALT-TAB will cycle through all of your windows (not
> just LW, of course). Dunno if the various window managers for Linux
> have an equivalent keyboard command.
On Windows, LW 4.2, Ctrl-TAB will cycle you through only the LW
windows, no matter if you're using the old interface or the new
all-tools-in-one-window style. This doesn't seem to work on Linux,
though - even if I prevent the window manager from hijacking this key.
Does anybody know if there's a similar key combo for Linux?
Edi.
--
Dr. Edmund Weitz
Hamburg
Germany
The Common Lisp Cookbook
<http://agharta.de/cookbook/>
···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz) writes:
> On Windows, LW 4.2, Ctrl-TAB will cycle you through only the LW
> windows, no matter if you're using the old interface or the new
> all-tools-in-one-window style. This doesn't seem to work on Linux,
> though - even if I prevent the window manager from hijacking this key.
>
> Does anybody know if there's a similar key combo for Linux?
Do you really need to cycle through _only_ the LW windows? I keep
LW in a workspace relatively free of other windows, and use the
key combo I've defined for window cycling in my wm.
--
(espen)
·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net writes:
> ···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz) writes:
>
> > On Windows, LW 4.2, Ctrl-TAB will cycle you through only the LW
> > windows, no matter if you're using the old interface or the new
> > all-tools-in-one-window style. This doesn't seem to work on Linux,
> > though - even if I prevent the window manager from hijacking this
> > key.
> >
> > Does anybody know if there's a similar key combo for Linux?
>
> Do you really need to cycle through _only_ the LW windows? I keep LW
> in a workspace relatively free of other windows, and use the key
> combo I've defined for window cycling in my wm.
I've also done this. But somehow I never really liked the idea of
different workspaces and tend to clutter my first workspace with all
my apps. (I also usually set the cycle-through-apps key to cycle
through _all_ apps, not only those in the current workspace.)
Edi.
--
Dr. Edmund Weitz
Hamburg
Germany
The Common Lisp Cookbook
<http://agharta.de/cookbook/>
···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz) writes:
>
> I've also done this. But somehow I never really liked the idea of
> different workspaces and tend to clutter my first workspace with all
> my apps. (I also usually set the cycle-through-apps key to cycle
> through _all_ apps, not only those in the current workspace.)
Hmm. Maybe you need a new window manager. Ever tried WindowMaker?
--
(espen)
·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net writes:
> Hmm. Maybe you need a new window manager. Ever tried WindowMaker?
Urrgh - you hit a weak spot...
I think I've tried too many window managers actually. I've been using
FVWM2 for quite some time (maybe two years) and was rather happy with
it until I started to try out other WMs. I currently use KDE (and its
WM of course) although I'm not using KDE's added "I want to be like
Windows" features and although it's slow and bloated. I mainly like
its "Run Command" feature and I also like Konqueror for various
reasons. Between FVWM2 and KDE I've tried lots of other WMs but none
of them longer than a couple of days. I wasn't really 100 percent
happy with any of them and I'm not 100 percent happy with KDE either.
What I want is a WM where I actually never have to touch the mouse for
my basic work. I'd rather leave my hands on the keyboard. KDE comes
close at least.
Ed.
--
Dr. Edmund Weitz
Hamburg
Germany
The Common Lisp Cookbook
<http://agharta.de/cookbook/>
From: Johannes =?iso-8859-15?q?Gr=F8dem?=
Subject: Re: ACL vs. LispWorks
Date:
Message-ID: <lzzo2gce5n.fsf@bzzzt.fix.no>
* ···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz):
> What I want is a WM where I actually never have to touch the mouse for
> my basic work. I'd rather leave my hands on the keyboard. KDE comes
> close at least.
Ion comes closest. Go to http://www.students.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/.
It's kind of different from what you're used to, and will seem strange
at first, but do give it a try. As a bonus, it's also very fast (not
bloated).
--
johs
"Johannes Gr�dem" <··@kopkillah.com> writes:
> * ···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz):
>
>> What I want is a WM where I actually never have to touch the mouse for
>> my basic work. I'd rather leave my hands on the keyboard. KDE comes
>> close at least.
>
> Ion comes closest. Go to http://www.students.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/.
> It's kind of different from what you're used to, and will seem strange
> at first, but do give it a try. As a bonus, it's also very fast (not
> bloated).
>
[bpt now plans to give ion another try...]
If you don't like Ion, PWM is also very keyboard-controllable. (Though
not very keyboard controllable, Fluxbox is also somewhat interesting,
and stole some PWM features.)
* PWM: <URL:http://www.students.tut.fi/~tuomov/pwm/>
* Fluxbox: <URL:http://fluxbox.sf.net/>
> --
> johs
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
Brian P Templeton <···@tunes.org> writes:
> "Johannes Gr�dem" <··@kopkillah.com> writes:
>
>> * ···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz):
>>
>>> What I want is a WM where I actually never have to touch the mouse for
>>> my basic work. I'd rather leave my hands on the keyboard. KDE comes
>>> close at least.
>>
>> Ion comes closest. Go to http://www.students.tut.fi/~tuomov/ion/.
>> It's kind of different from what you're used to, and will seem strange
>> at first, but do give it a try. As a bonus, it's also very fast (not
>> bloated).
>>
> [bpt now plans to give ion another try...]
>
> If you don't like Ion, PWM is also very keyboard-controllable. (Though
> not very keyboard controllable, Fluxbox is also somewhat interesting,
> and stole some PWM features.)
Ratpoison is another:
http://ratpoison.sourceforge.net/
I renewed my effort to go mouseless a couple of months ago, and
found this one, which I'm using. It also lets one take full
advantage of a small (e.g. laptop) screen.
Chris
···@agharta.de (Dr. Edmund Weitz) wrote in message news:<··············@bird.agharta.de>...
> ·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net writes:
>
> > Hmm. Maybe you need a new window manager. Ever tried WindowMaker?
>
> What I want is a WM where I actually never have to touch the mouse for
> my basic work. I'd rather leave my hands on the keyboard. KDE comes
> close at least.
>
WindowMaker is pretty nice for this. I use my mouse maybe 10 times a
day. It's lightweight, and you can easily bind keys to most of the wm
functionality. I particularly like the way you can cycle between
windows without the win/kde
select-the-window-you-want-to-focus-from-one-of-these-icons overlay
thing. Unfortunately newer versions have become more burdonsome to use
(for me anyway). As an example, I like to bind ctrl-right-arrow to
cycle to other windows in one direction and ctrl-left-arrow to cycle
the opposite direction, with ctrl-up-arrow to shade/unshade, and
ctrl-down-arrow to iconify. It seems newer versions don't like you to
hold down ctrl and do multiple cycling/shading/resizing/etc, so I
stick with 0.61. This makes working with LW a complete breeze.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
>> "Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
>> ····················@shell01.TheWorld.com...
>> >
>> > Also, again like in Gnu Emacs, LispWorks has c-m-q, which will re-indent
>> > the balanced parenthetical expression in front of your cursor.
>>
>> or the expression immediately behind, whish is often more convenient.
>>
>> >
>> > you like. c-x o can be used to move from the lisp to the editor once
>> > the editor window is created (it's a pity c-x o doesn't take you back;
>> > I've bug-reported this).
>>
>> I've been pining for a key-combo to jump to the listener too, it is very
>> conspicuous in its absence!
>
> c-z would be the right keystroke for that, though some argument could
> be made for c-x c-c (which right now tries to exit LW, something I
> think doesn't need to be on so short a command sequence).
>
> Send a bug report / feature-request. (Tell them I'd like this, too. :-)
> I vote for c-z because it presently has no meaning but means suspend-emacs
> in Gnu Emacs, which is roughly conceptually the same as what we're
> asking for.
>
...in GNU Emacs with ILISP loaded, C-z is a prefix key, and C-z b
jumps to the REPL window. (The behavior is a bit annoying, but maybe
it's fixed in newer ILISP versions than mine.)
>> or indeed any way to just cycle through the LW windows.
>
> Well, c-x o will cycle through just the editor windows, though I
> guess that's not what you meant.
>
> And on the PC, ALT-TAB will cycle through all of your windows (not
> just LW, of course). Dunno if the various window managers for Linux have
> an equivalent keyboard command.
>
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> I've been pining for a key-combo to jump to the listener too, it is very
> conspicuous in its absence! or indeed any way to just cycle through the LW
> windows.
C-<Tab> will do it in windows.
--
Eduardo Mu�oz
"Eduardo Mu�oz" <···@jet.es> wrote in message ··················@jet.es...
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
> > I've been pining for a key-combo to jump to the listener too, it is very
> > conspicuous in its absence! or indeed any way to just cycle through the
LW
> > windows.
>
> C-<Tab> will do it in windows.
> --
I know I have done it in other windows apps with Alt<F?> 6 or something too.
Thanks, this is all I needed.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Siegfried Gonzi" <···············@kfunigraz.ac.at> writes:
> Okay, the AL CL environment is far better than the LispWorks one
cough, cough
> (the LispWorks guys still believe that Emacs is an editor which one
> want to work with;
They are not alone: "An integral part of the Allegro CL programming
environment is the interface between various implementations of Emacs
(Xemacs or GNU Emacs) and Allegro CL, hereafter referred to as the
Emacs-Lisp interface" (from the Allegro CL 6.1 documentation - see
<http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.1/doc/eli.htm> for
more).
> but there is the option to go to Windows mode; which everybody
> should use;
Is this a law that I've overlooked until now or just you not-so-humble
opinion?
:)
Cheers,
Edi.
Jan Hladik <···@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Our chair is going to buy a new lisp system for Linux. Up to now, we
> have been using Franz ACL, but LispWorks seems to have several
> advantages:
>
> - IDE with a useable debugger,
> - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
> - lower price.
>
> Could those people who have experience with one of these systems please
> add their pros and cons?
This question is very difficult to answer. I don't know e.g ACL so how
can I say what the advantages are. Well I just can say why I have
choosen LispWorks
- Nice IDE on any supported platform
- with CAPI it does have a cross platfrom GUI Tool
- Nice Lisp Editor ;-)
- good libraries (e.g CommonSQL ..)
- IMHO good documentation (unfortunatly not in printed form, and one
has to admit not all is really documented)
- reasonable price
Regards
Friedrich
Jan Hladik <···@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote in
······················@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de:
> - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
I haven't tried ACL and was "forced" to choose LispWorks for Windows
because of the licensing issues for ACL executables.
I haven't looked back since. LispWorks is a fine product.
I've used CAPI to build UI's and 2-D graphics, I've used the FLI to bolt
colleagues' C/C++ projects into lisp, I've used COMM sockets to talk to
colleagues' Tcl/Tk and C++ projects, I've built compilers with it and I've
built unix'y small tool-lets to assist during development of embedded
applications. Unlike my experience with many other tools and IDE's, I
can't think of anything LispWorks does that gets in my way.
pt
Paul Tarvydas wrote:
> I haven't tried ACL and was "forced" to choose LispWorks for Windows
> because of the licensing issues for ACL executables.
>
> I haven't looked back since. LispWorks is a fine product.
You're right. I still like ACL more, but once a person has chosen lisp
over (pick-your-poison), 95% of the battle is won. The rest is
frosting.
Another argument is that if one is funding his/her own venture,
LW/MCL/<a-free-lisp> has the preferred licensing structure. If one is
in a large institution with reliable funding, ACL makes sense. I keep
complaining about pricing, but really, we're lucky that we have 2+
tiers, unlike the poor old Openstep programmers who had a $5000 choice
or no choice.
In other words, I don't think Xanalys is harmed much by a department
picking ACL, since most individual lispers will pick Xanalys--and vice
versa. They each serve their own constituency.
Or something like that...
Eric
Paul Tarvydas wrote:
>
> Jan Hladik <···@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote in
> ······················@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de:
>
> > - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
>
> I haven't tried ACL and was "forced" to choose LispWorks for Windows
> because of the licensing issues for ACL executables.
>
> I haven't looked back since. LispWorks is a fine product.
>
...
> applications. Unlike my experience with many other tools and IDE's, I
> can't think of anything LispWorks does that gets in my way.
I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
completely.
Is there a way around this?
C-M-Suspend, anyone?
"Carl Gay" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote in message
······················@mediaone.net...
>
> I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
> now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
> a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
> way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
> the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
> completely.
>
> Is there a way around this?
>
> C-M-Suspend, anyone?
Can you activate the Process Browser? It's under the Tools menu.
Geoff
"Geoff Summerhayes" <·············@hNoOtSmPaAiMl.com> writes:
> "Carl Gay" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote ...
> > ... I haven't found any way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either
> > recover or abort the frozen process. My only option is to kill
> > LispWorks completely.
> > ...
> >
> > C-M-Suspend, anyone?
>
> Can you activate the Process Browser? It's under the Tools menu.
I agree. I've found the Process Browser to generally work just fine.
It can be invoked from the initial podium, which is usually able to
come up even when other things are wedged.
But, in addition, if you can get to the window to type to, c-Break on
a PC keyboard generally works like the LispM's c-m-Suspend and will
force a debugging break even when you're not waiting for input. I
think there are times it doesn't work and you do have to use the
Process Browser. I almost never have to blow away my LispWorks to get
out of things.
From: Carl Gay
Subject: Re: Interrupting LispWorks [was Re: ACL vs. LispWorks]
Date:
Message-ID: <3C600758.3614D44@mediaone.net>
Geoff Summerhayes wrote:
>
> "Carl Gay" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> ······················@mediaone.net...
> >
> > I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
> > now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
> > a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
> > way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
> > the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
> > completely.
> >
> > Is there a way around this?
> >
> > C-M-Suspend, anyone?
>
> Can you activate the Process Browser? It's under the Tools menu.
>
> Geoff
No. Sorry, I wasn't clear... None of the LWW windows are accessible.
I.e., they won't come to the front and accept input. Therefore I can't
get to the Process Browser at all. Tracking down how my Lisp gets into
this state is hard, but I did it once and it was in the process of
making a connection to a remote database. It's a relatively rare
occurrance, and frequently if I just kill LWW and restart it _just works_
the next time. I guess there's some low-level code that manages to wedge
all the LWW processes (e.g., a process scheduler bug?).
> No. Sorry, I wasn't clear... None of the LWW windows are accessible.
> I.e., they won't come to the front and accept input. Therefore I can't
> get to the Process Browser at all. Tracking down how my Lisp gets into
> this state is hard, but I did it once and it was in the process of
> making a connection to a remote database. It's a relatively rare
> occurrance, and frequently if I just kill LWW and restart it _just works_
> the next time. I guess there's some low-level code that manages to wedge
> all the LWW processes (e.g., a process scheduler bug?).
I've gotten into that state by trying to open a SQL connection to a
table that has a read lock. To get out of it, I stop then restart the
SQL server. Then, LWW windows become responsive.
There maybe a way to directly break LWW out of this waiting, but I
have not found it.
--
Kevin Rosenberg
·····@rosenberg.net
From: Friedrich Domincus
Subject: Re: Interrupting LispWorks [was Re: ACL vs. LispWorks]
Date:
Message-ID: <874rkvly1a.fsf@fbigm.here>
Carl Gay <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
> now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
> a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
> way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
> the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
> completely.
Have you checked the Process Browser? If it is possible to reach it,
you can kill you processes from there.
Regards
Friedrich
"Carl Gay" <·······@mediaone.net> wrote .
>
> I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
> now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
> a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
> way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
> the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
> completely.
>
> Is there a way around this?
There is a break button on the 4.2 listener toolbar. It looks like ||
(standard pause button)
Marc
Carl Gay <·······@mediaone.net> writes:
> I use LWW also, and it's great except for one problem. Every
> now and then my code freezes up (sometimes when trying to get
> a database connection, for example) and I haven't found any
> way to interrupt LispWorks so I can either recover or abort
> the frozen process. My only option is to kill LispWorks
> completely.
When lispworks is doing SQL stuff, it's down in FFI land,
either to Oracle or ODBC (depending which you chose).
If either decides to do a blocking system call, the Lisp
scheduler doesn't know about it, and, on Linux, where they
don't use native threads, the whole world stops.
This can be caused, for example, by the DB waiting to
acquire a transaction lock. [Hint, your application
may be deadlocked.] Or if you perform a SELECT which
returns 1,000,000 rows, you'll see Lisp freeze until
the query returns.
> Is there a way around this?
No. I've complained to them bitterly about this. We're stuck.
This is one of the principal causes of headaches and grey hair
for me at the moment. [I actually DO do selects which return
huge amounts of data]. Timers get starved, reaper loops don't
run, CORBA connections don't get answered... you get the idea.
If you ever get a workaround, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> writes:
> When lispworks is doing SQL stuff, it's down in FFI land,
> either to Oracle or ODBC (depending which you chose).
>
> If either decides to do a blocking system call, the Lisp
> scheduler doesn't know about it, and, on Linux, where they
> don't use native threads, the whole world stops.
Well, Lispworks for Windows uses native threads but weird things still
happen when an FFI call performs a blocking operation. If you are
using their GUI environment you'll notice awfully quickly that Lisp is
not behaving normally for the duration of the blocking call. Worse
still, there doesn't seem to be a safe way to abort the blocked FFI
call. If you try to kill the calling thread from the process browser,
your session will forever more be in a wacky state.
Jan Hladik wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Our chair is going to buy a new lisp system for Linux. Up to now, we
> have been using Franz ACL, but LispWorks seems to have several
> advantages:
>
> - IDE with a useable debugger,
> - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
> - lower price.
>
> Could those people who have experience with one of these systems please
> add their pros and cons?
Boy, I hate to promote one implementation over any others--I want lots
of happy lisp companies thinking they can get my rent money. ;)
That said, if I could afford Allegro, I would use it. While Xanalys'
support (aka Bridget Bovy) is very prompt and friendly, I prefer Franz'
product for the following reasons.
[1] their FFI is IMO far more intuitive
[2] their emacs interface is more developed
[3] their code compiles faster and runs (mostly) faster
If you aren't doing zillion-line projects, [3] won't matter much. Nor
will [1] if you are staying within lisp. If you don't use emacs, you
won't care about [2].
And it all comes at a steep price, plus runtime fees if you sell your
work. Plus, CLIM is extra with Franz. My opinion is you get what you
pay for.
Eric
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to
factor large prime numbers."
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, Viking Penguin (1995), page 265
Eric Moss <········@alltel.net> writes:
>
> That said, if I could afford Allegro, I would use it. While Xanalys'
> support (aka Bridget Bovy) is very prompt and friendly, I prefer Franz'
> product for the following reasons.
>
> [1] their FFI is IMO far more intuitive
Well it is very difficult to compare from my side, because I do not
know Franz FFI. Anyway with LispWorks 4.2. you take you c-code and let
LispWorks write the wrappers.
e.g if you have this
typedef struct foo {
int some_int;
double some_double;
} s_foo;
s_foo * new_foo (int i, double d);
you got this after M-x Evaluate Buffer
#| DATE : 2Feb2
| USER : frido
| PROCESSED FILE : /home/frido/c_wrap.h
|#
(in-package "COMMON-LISP-USER")
;;; Derived from file : "/var/tmp/filePTAkXs.h"
(fli:define-c-struct (foo (:foreign-name "foo"))
(some-int :int)
(some-double :double))
(fli:define-c-typedef (s-foo (:foreign-name "s_foo")) (:struct foo))
(fli:define-foreign-function (new-foo "new_foo" :source)
((i :int) (d :double))
:result-type
(:pointer s-foo)
:language
:c)
Well I think this is very comfortable. And I think it's quite readable
too.
>
> And it all comes at a steep price, plus runtime fees if you sell your
> work. Plus, CLIM is extra with Franz.
You got it with LisWorks in the Prof. Version.
Regards
Friedrich
"Eric Moss" <········@alltel.net> wrote in message
······················@alltel.net...
> That said, if I could afford Allegro, I would use it. While Xanalys'
> support (aka Bridget Bovy) is very prompt and friendly, I prefer Franz'
> product for the following reasons.
>
I believe that would be "Brigitte" : ) (damn, now I don't find any old
email to verify, and I think I may be misspelling it too!) But I'm really
piping in to second and third the great opinion of their support. LW is a
fine product (and kudos to them for version 4.2) many fine improvements (re
development environment and docs)
Coby
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jan Hladik <···@cantor.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
As others have said, having only used 1 (in anger), comparisons
are meaningless. So this is not an "ACL vs LispWorks" post, just
a "my opinions on LispWorks post":
> - IDE with a useable debugger,
I don't use that. So no comment. I don't find debugging in Lisp
very hard. What I miss more from not using their IDEs are code navigation,
inspection, and profiling.
> - No extra fees for distribution of executables,
That alone, of course, is enough to make a commercial decision. :-)
After that, the rest is just gravy.
> - lower price.
The per-seat cost doesn't bother me so much, but it might you.
> Could those people who have experience with one of these systems please
> add their pros and cons?
Minuses:
* They still don't have a real emacs integration (nothwithstanding
what some other poster said, I think if I can't use emacs, I can't
program in it. And their editor may be emacs-"like", but I want
GNU emacs, period. So I use ILISP, sigh.)
* Their docs kinda suck (Sorry Xanalys!)
Pluses:
* Their support is _SUPERB_.
* Their layered stuff works well; threads, corba, SQL, and now ODBC
on linux gives you a very nice DB independence. I use PostgreSQL
myself.
* The argument "That's not what the hyperspec says" carries
weight with them.
* Did I mention their support?
If you _know_ you're going to be on Linux, did you consider
CMUCL? And if you did and dismissed it, could we know why? Thanks.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
Alain Picard wrote:
> If you _know_ you're going to be on Linux, did you consider
> CMUCL? And if you did and dismissed it, could we know why? Thanks.
I thought CMUCL was just a compiler and did not have a
debugger/profiler. Looks like I was wrong. So I guess I'm gonna take
another look at it!
Jan