As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
* A very nice code completion.
* A very nice inline browser of functions, both yours or CL ones. Just
click a function or macro and a big tooltip is presented with its
descripcion and usage. Even it is able to pick up your comments and put
them inside the tooltip, so you can read your own documentation (very
useful when you wrote such a function several months ago). And faster
than searching in hyperspec.
* A very nice debugger.
* Support for all free implementations under Unix, including GCL and of
course CLISP, SBCL and CMU.
http://jabberwocky.sourceforge.net/
Please tell here what do you think about it, and features you
like/dislike.
Juanjo wrote:
> javuchi schrieb:
>> * Support for all free implementations under Unix, including GCL and of
>> course CLISP, SBCL and CMU.
>
> What about ECL? :-)
Or OpenMCL. Are there just a few LOC that'd need to be adapted to a new
Lisp, or is it more work than that?
--
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong
On 13 Dec 2005 19:41:26 -0800, "javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> tried to
confuse everyone with this message:
>As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
>Jabberwocky...
>
>Please tell here what do you think about it, and features you
>like/dislike.
>
I tried it some time ago, and it was quite slow. There also were some
technical problems with it, but I don't remember now.
--
|a\o/r|,-------------.,---------- Timofei Shatrov aka Grue ------------.
| m"a ||FC AMKAR PERM|| mail: grue at mail.ru http://grue3.tripod.com |
| k || PWNZ J00 || Kingdom of Loathing: Grue3 lvl 18 Seal Clubber |
`-----'`-------------'`-------------------------------------------[4*72]
In article <························@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, javuchi wrote:
> Please tell here what do you think about it, and features you
> like/dislike.
I think this is a very good start of an IDE. However there are a few thinks that
are buggy (or that I dislike):
- I don't like the automatic parentesis-closing (but I assume this to be
a /very/ individual thing). I would have kept them off by default.
- When changing to the GTK "look and feel" I get the following (part of) a stack
trace from Java when trying to run SBCL:
at javax.swing.JScrollPane.<init>(JScrollPane.java:313)
at IDE.CodeEditor.CodePane.<init>(CodePane.java:35)
at IDE.Interaction.AbstractInteractionPane.<init>(AbstractInteractionPane.java:46)
at IDE.Interaction.InteractionPane.<init>(InteractionPane.java:35)
at IDE.Main$58.doWork(Main.java:882)
at IDE.Configuration.AbstractIDEAction.actionPerformed(AbstractIDEAction.java:40)
at javax.swing.AbstractButton.fireActionPerformed(AbstractButton.java:1849)
- If I run SBCL under the standard "metal"-feel, SBCL works well, but if I change to
GTK afterwards, the main window gets incredibly long (endless?).
- The app is a bit sluggish, maybe because of debugging code or Java (?).
- Xtf-fonts would be a big win I think.
- Using a "native" graphics toolkit would gain much. SWT for Java, for example, or
WxWidgets for C++ (and in the future, lisp too). This would give speed, Xft and
consistency with the rest of the programs on the desktop.
- I think that a separate window with configurations is better than a list of
options in a menu.
- Emacs key-bindings may (_may_) be useful for convincing emacs-fans to swap.
Thats just my first impressions after 10 min. use...
--
�yvin
"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
> Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
> more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
It may be that many (most?) lispers are extremely unwilling to
abandon emacs; for me, this is such a force that, even though
I have an entreprise license of Lispworks, I _still_ don't use their
editor and GUI IDE, but work from SLIME almost exclusively.
So for me, the fact that you provide your own editor is a
show stopper right there --- I don't even bother downloading the
package. It may sound perverse, but somehow eye candy just doesn't
seem to "sell" as well with lispers as with most other programmers.
I personally don't find SLME difficult to use at all; in fact, I'm amazed at
the tightness of the integration, especially of the debugger,
source locator, and inspector.
Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java. The more I can stay
_away_ from Java, the happier I feel. Again, as a lisper, this may
not be a unique reaction. If I discover something I want to change
in this IDE, I'd have to switch gear to Java, figure out how to
build the darn thing, etc etc. With emacs/SLIME, I'm only ever
one M-x command away from trying out my new function definitions.
So this loses again.
I'm not trying to discourage you from writing this fine IDE,
but merely providing a data point as to why you may not be getting
as much traction as you were expected with this project.
--ap
Alain Picard ha escrito:
> I'm not trying to discourage you from writing this fine IDE,
> but merely providing a data point as to why you may not be getting
> as much traction as you were expected with this project.
Sorry, you are confused, I am not the author of Jabberwocky and am not
related at all with it.
I just wanted some impressions from you.
"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry, you are confused, I am not the author of Jabberwocky and am not
> related at all with it.
> I just wanted some impressions from you.
Ah! Oh good, I was trying to tiptoe through the tulips to not
offend the author. In that case, my impression is far more
blunt: SLIME totally rulez, so why bother with anything else?
--ap
In article <··············@memetrics.com>,
Alain Picard <············@memetrics.com> wrote:
>"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
>> Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
>> more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
...
>Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java.
That's strange. To the original poster: Why Java? Picking Java to
write an IDE for Lisp is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lisp.
-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
>> Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java.
>
> That's strange. To the original poster: Why Java? Picking Java to
> write an IDE for Lisp is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lisp.
I agree, it's not exactly cool, but Java is free for everybody out
there, and it provides a portable GUI on all its supported platforms.
For that reason there's stuff like ABCL, which also has some interesting
applications, btw. Of course it'd be cool if Jabberwocky included lots
of Lisp (like ABCL), but I don't know its internals. Maybe it is
programmable.
--
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong
Ulrich Hobelmann ha escrito:
> MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
> >> Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java.
> >
> > That's strange. To the original poster: Why Java? Picking Java to
> > write an IDE for Lisp is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lisp.
>
> I agree, it's not exactly cool, but Java is free for everybody out
> there, and it provides a portable GUI on all its supported platforms.
I agree. But we've got also gtkserver, which works pretty well under
Linux and Windows in CLISP. Perhaps the author didn't know.
"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> I agree. But we've got also gtkserver, which works pretty well under
> Linux and Windows in CLISP. Perhaps the author didn't know.
If by "the author" you meant me, you are most certainly correct---all
I know of it is what I read on the site; I have not even downloaded
the software. I was just trying to give you some feedback to your
puzzlement about apparent lack of interest.
If I hear a whole bunch of lispers saying "Whoa! that thing is cool,
way better than SLIME! check it out!" then I might take a look. Right
now, there just seems not to be any compelling "hook" feature to be
worth investigating.
cheers,
--ap
Alain Picard ha escrito:
> "javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I agree. But we've got also gtkserver, which works pretty well under
> > Linux and Windows in CLISP. Perhaps the author didn't know.
>
> If by "the author" you meant me, you are most certainly correct---all
> I know of it is what I read on the site; I have not even downloaded
> the software. I was just trying to give you some feedback to your
> puzzlement about apparent lack of interest.
You're again confused. By "the author" I meant Jabberwocky's author.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
>>> Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java.
>>
>> That's strange. To the original poster: Why Java? Picking Java to
>> write an IDE for Lisp is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lisp.
>
>I agree, it's not exactly cool, but Java is free for everybody out
>there, and it provides a portable GUI on all its supported platforms.
My assumption would be that the author of Jabberworky likes Lisp and wants
to work in Lisp. Given that assumption, I'd have thought a more suitable
approach would have been to 1) develop out the GUI support in a Lisp
sufficiently to support his effort and 2) develop Jabberwocky around that.
Of course, it's easy for me to sit here and armchair quarterback his
decisions...
-mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
>> Secondly, Jabberwocky is written in.... Java.
>
> That's strange. To the original poster: Why Java? Picking Java to
> write an IDE for Lisp is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Lisp.
In an email the developer of Jabberwocky disclosed to me (I hope I may
publish this information) that he's himself annoyed by the amount of
Java in it, and that he's planning a new version that uses more Lisp
(which sounds a bit like Emacs, only in Java).
So who knows what's up and coming next year...
--
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong
Alain Picard <············@memetrics.com> writes:
> "javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
> > Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
> > more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
>
> It may be that many (most?) lispers are extremely unwilling to
> abandon emacs; for me, this is such a force that, even though
> I have an entreprise license of Lispworks, I _still_ don't use their
> editor and GUI IDE, but work from SLIME almost exclusively.
But the Lispworks editor is Hemlock, a Common Lisp Emacs. I agree
that SLIME is quite nice -- but as a Lisp editor, Hemlock is no less
an Emacs than GNU Emacs. And since you can extend it in Common Lisp,
I'd expect Lispworks users would be particularly fond of it.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
Thomas F. Burdick <···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
...
>But the Lispworks editor is Hemlock, a Common Lisp Emacs. I agree
>that SLIME is quite nice -- but as a Lisp editor, Hemlock is no less
>an Emacs than GNU Emacs.
Hemlock predates GNU Emacs, does it not?
This document refers to Hemlock in a post from 1983:
http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp/Early-CL-History.text
RMS is mentioned in the document too, but in his pre FSF capacity
as a Lisp machine hacker, it seems.
-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
On 15 Dec 2005 00:29:45 -0800, ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
> But the Lispworks editor is Hemlock, a Common Lisp Emacs. I agree
> that SLIME is quite nice -- but as a Lisp editor, Hemlock is no less
> an Emacs than GNU Emacs. And since you can extend it in Common
> Lisp, I'd expect Lispworks users would be particularly fond of it.
LispWorks has a very nice IDE and it's cool that you can extend the
editor with Common Lisp but it's hard to compete with the combined
hackery of all the Emacs Lisp guys out there. GNU Emacs simply has
lots more bells and whistles to choose from and some of them are
really actually useful. (Still, I've come to prefer the LW IDE over
SLIME recently.)
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> But the Lispworks editor is Hemlock, a Common Lisp Emacs. I agree
> that SLIME is quite nice -- but as a Lisp editor, Hemlock is no less
> an Emacs than GNU Emacs.
That may be, but it doesn't seem to come with the mailer,
newsreader, occasional web browser, and, most importantly,
revision control system that I use. In the end, what it
would mean is that I use one editor to code, and another
editor for everything else. To me, this doesn't seem like a win.
> And since you can extend it in Common Lisp,
Ah, but I don't _want_ to extend it at all --- I want to use
one that's already been extended _for_ me.
> I'd expect Lispworks users would be particularly fond of it.
Amazing, isn't it? :-)
In article <1134531686.780694.185250
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ·······@gmail.com says...
> As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
> Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
> more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
Jabberwocky looks much better than Slime to me, but
unfortunately, it does not even install on my computer.
Majorinc ha escrito:
> In article <1134531686.780694.185250
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ·······@gmail.com says...
>
> > As I see that nobody talks about it, I remind you: take a look at
> > Jabberwocky... its new version, 2.0 and up does have amazing features
> > more easier to use than in SLIME, for example:
>
>
> Jabberwocky looks much better than Slime to me, but
> unfortunately, it does not even install on my computer.
Perhaps I can assist you on installing it, if it is the problem.