·········@yahoo.ca (Jules Grosse) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Reading about portable Hemlock I was wondering --- anybody here uses
> it for Lisp programming?
I used to, and I probably will again.
> How prouctive is it?
It's really quite wonderful. It's missing some tools that Emacs/ILisp
has, but ILisp is missing things that Hemlock has.
> Better than Emacs?
I'd say a qualified yes.
If you're only planning on using CMUCL, and you're not already an
Emacs user, Hemlock is probably the way to go. The reason I stopped
using it is because at the moment, I'm actively developing code for
CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL, and OpenMCL. Emacs/ILisp gives me a fairly
consistent user experience across all of these
[ Actually, with some of the Emacs<->CMUCL debugging and inspecting
packages that are being worked on right now, Emacs might end out
decisively nudging out Hemlock. But that's in the future, and will
only happen if no one makes a Hemlock version of the editor end of
things. ]
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@avalanche.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> If you're only planning on using CMUCL, and you're not already an
> Emacs user, Hemlock is probably the way to go. The reason I stopped
> using it is because at the moment, I'm actively developing code for
> CLISP, CMUCL, SBCL, and OpenMCL. Emacs/ILisp gives me a fairly
> consistent user experience across all of these
You may already know about this, but Portable Hemlock runs (at least
to the extent of basic text editing) on all of the above. It doesn't
yet have a lot of the add-on packages (mail, news reading, probably
debugging support, etc) of real hemlock, though.
http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~unk6/export/hemlock.README
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources