I'm trying to figure out why all the free Lisp implementations are all
command-line only, while the nice IDEs are commercial only. It doesn't
seem to me there is One True GUI toolkit that is freely available and
cross-platform (at least not yet, anyway) but it seems almost every
other language out there has a few or even a number of free open source
IDEs, or something in the works.
Since Lisp *is* so powerful, I'm surprised that I haven't been able to
find even some rudimentary clones of the Allegro/LispWorks style IDEs
written in Lisp itself. Any idea why no one has undertaken this
project, even just for one implementation and/or platform?
I'm taking a look at Jabberwocky, but I haven't heard much about it. I
keep skipping it because of the Java overhead it would require on my
laptop, but I might have no other choice. VisualCLisp seems to be just
an editor with a listener.
It seems Lisp itself would be a great language to use for a great free
Lisp IDE. Am I wrong here?
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> I'm trying to figure out why all the free Lisp implementations are all
> command-line only, while the nice IDEs are commercial only. It doesn't
> seem to me there is One True GUI toolkit that is freely available and
> cross-platform (at least not yet, anyway) but it seems almost every
> other language out there has a few or even a number of free open source
> IDEs, or something in the works.
>
> Since Lisp *is* so powerful, I'm surprised that I haven't been able to
> find even some rudimentary clones of the Allegro/LispWorks style IDEs
> written in Lisp itself. Any idea why no one has undertaken this
> project, even just for one implementation and/or platform?
>
> I'm taking a look at Jabberwocky, but I haven't heard much about it. I
> keep skipping it because of the Java overhead it would require on my
> laptop, but I might have no other choice. VisualCLisp seems to be just
> an editor with a listener.
>
> It seems Lisp itself would be a great language to use for a great free
> Lisp IDE. Am I wrong here?
Because we don't want to develop octopus AI that communicate flashing
nice surface colors, we want to develop homo sapiens AI that
communicate with speech and text.
CLI are more powerfull than GUI.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Because we don't want to develop octopus AI that communicate flashing
> nice surface colors, we want to develop homo sapiens AI that
> communicate with speech and text.
>
> CLI are more powerfull than GUI.
Well, yes, you do have a point there. And coming from Unix I love the
CLI as well. But after reading that a few very large, complex projects
were actually *helped* by these 2 IDEs, it makes me wonder.
But aside from that, when is there going to be a good stepping debugger
(I read that SBCL, which I use, has one in the works), and when will
McCLIM be ready for serious use?
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> But aside from that, when is there going to be a good stepping debugger
> (I read that SBCL, which I use, has one in the works), and when will
> McCLIM be ready for serious use?
Do you have a support contract? Try asking your vendor.
-dan
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
> > Because we don't want to develop octopus AI that communicate flashing
> > nice surface colors, we want to develop homo sapiens AI that
> > communicate with speech and text.
> >
> > CLI are more powerfull than GUI.
>
> Well, yes, you do have a point there. And coming from Unix I love the
> CLI as well. But after reading that a few very large, complex projects
> were actually *helped* by these 2 IDEs, it makes me wonder.
>
> But aside from that, when is there going to be a good stepping debugger
> (I read that SBCL, which I use, has one in the works), and when will
> McCLIM be ready for serious use?
I thought CMU had a stepping debugger.
In article <·················@news.indigo.ie>,
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>
> > CLI are more powerfull than GUI.
> >
>
> The two are not mutually exlusive, as CLIM Listeners and XMLTerm
> demonstrate...
CLIM allows you to use powerful command interpreters all over the place,
not just in the Listener.
Rainer Joswig wrote:
>> The two are not mutually exlusive, as CLIM Listeners and XMLTerm
>> demonstrate...
>
> CLIM allows you to use powerful command interpreters all over the
> place, not just in the Listener.
Indeed. But the listener _is_ quite the snazzy demonstration thereof...
jonathon wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out why all the free Lisp implementations are all
> command-line only, while the nice IDEs are commercial only. It doesn't
> seem to me there is One True GUI toolkit that is freely available and
> cross-platform (at least not yet, anyway) but it seems almost every
> other language out there has a few or even a number of free open source
> IDEs, or something in the works.
It's not just Lisp. There is no One True GUI. The most portable
GUIs might be GTk, WXWindows, Qt, and SWT. The latter two seem to
see reasonable use. Probably SWT is a good bet, even though some
people say it's not powerful enough (the Swing people?).
On the Mac they all look like crap, so there are reasons to just
program one GUI per platform, and only port the rest of the
program. Otherwise, SWT bindings for Lisp might be a good idea.
--
By claiming a patent [...], I'm saying that you are not permitted
to use your own knowledge to further your ends. By what right?
Roderick T. Long
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> It's not just Lisp. There is no One True GUI. The most portable
> GUIs might be GTk, WXWindows, Qt, and SWT. The latter two seem to
Well, yes, but isn't CLIM supposed to be cross-platform? Is McCLIM
still under active development? I was browsing the CVS tree, and some
files haven't been touched in years. And most of the screenshots are
just listener windows.
When I see stuff like this:
http://www.fractalconcept.com/asp/5wD1/sdataQI9IzNxozRW$DM==/7wD1sdataQuxi9oMm
I get really jealous ;-)
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> It's not just Lisp. There is no One True GUI. The most portable
>> GUIs might be GTk, WXWindows, Qt, and SWT. The latter two seem to
>
> Well, yes, but isn't CLIM supposed to be cross-platform?
It's supposed to be more-or-less backend-independent, unless the
application programmer specifically asks for backend-specific
behaviour.
> Is McCLIM still under active development?
Yes. (10 seconds of browsing the commits or the developers' mailing
list archives would have told you this.)
> I was browsing the CVS tree, and some files haven't been touched in
> years.
Maybe that means that they work. Or that they are stale. Your
observation is noted, but it's not terribly relevant to anything.
> And most of the screenshots are just listener windows.
I like the way you say "just". What is a graphical listener but (one
component of) an IDE?
> When I see stuff like this:
>
> http://www.fractalconcept.com/asp/5wD1/sdataQI9IzNxozRW$DM==/7wD1sdataQuxi9oMm
>
> I get really jealous ;-)
That has nothing to do with IDEness, and something to do with being
able to draw on the screen.
Have you actually tried to do anything at all?
Christophe
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> > Is McCLIM still under active development?
>
> Yes. (10 seconds of browsing the commits or the developers' mailing
> list archives would have told you this.)
Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant. I meant to ask if it was
under 'heavy' development or had slowed down and/or been overtaken by
other projects.
> I like the way you say "just". What is a graphical listener but (one
> component of) an IDE?
Well, yes, but I am thinking of project browsers, class browsers,
single-stepping debuggers, and GUI signal connectors.
> That has nothing to do with IDEness, and something to do with being
> able to draw on the screen.
>
> Have you actually tried to do anything at all?
Not drawing on the screen, per se. I liked Python for a while, and I
used gtk for those apps. I didn't do any fancy graphics, but what I
*really* liked about it was I could use Glade-2 to design the GUI,
connect the events to handlers, and then go concentrate on the
application code.
I tried lambda-gtk, but I thought CLIM would be more Lisp-ish and more
powerful, from what I have seen. Rather than just re-doing a gtk app
in Lisp, I wanted to do something different.
The app I am working on right now is web based, so the toolkit doesn't
matter, but the next one I want to try WILL need plot capabilities and
also serial port access (which I am still researching for Lisp).
On 2005-07-09, jonathon <···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I tried lambda-gtk, but I thought CLIM would be more Lisp-ish and more
cells-gtk seems very Lisp-ish, but I don't know about libglade support:
http://common-lisp.net/project/cells-gtk/
Dave Cook
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <uvf3ktcgr.fsf@agharta.de>
On 9 Jul 2005 04:49:19 -0700, "jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> When I see stuff like this:
>
> http://www.fractalconcept.com/asp/5wD1/sdataQI9IzNxozRW$DM==/7wD1sdataQuxi9oMm
>
> I get really jealous ;-)
"Stuff like this" is done by commercial developers for real customers.
Paying the ridiculous sum of EUR 1,100 for a decent Lisp
implementation with a very nice IDE and the ability to create
cross-platform GUI frontends is really not a big deal in this case.
As long as you just want to play around you either have to build your
infrastructure yourself or you have to wait for one of those open
source fairies.
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Well, yes, but isn't CLIM supposed to be cross-platform? Is McCLIM
Yes.
> still under active development? I was browsing the CVS tree, and some
Is is still under development. See also my blog for updates:
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
> files haven't been touched in years. And most of the screenshots are
> just listener windows.
The latest McCLIM CVS commit is dated July 1, 2005. As for screen
shots, although CLIM can be used for creating other kinds of GUI,
listeners are what many McCLIM users mostly tend to develop.
> When I see stuff like this:
>
> http://www.fractalconcept.com/asp/5wD1/sdataQI9IzNxozRW$DM==/7wD1sdataQuxi9oMm
>
> I get really jealous ;-)
See:
http://common-lisp.net/project/cells-gtk/
http://common-lisp.net/project/lambda-gtk/
http://common-lisp.net/project/lgtk/
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools:
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> The latest McCLIM CVS commit is dated July 1, 2005. As for screen
> shots, although CLIM can be used for creating other kinds of GUI,
> listeners are what many McCLIM users mostly tend to develop.
There's something I'm missing, then. How is the REPL different from a
Listener?
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>> The latest McCLIM CVS commit is dated July 1, 2005. As for screen
>> shots, although CLIM can be used for creating other kinds of GUI,
>> listeners are what many McCLIM users mostly tend to develop.
>
> There's something I'm missing, then. How is the REPL different from a
> Listener?
I probably messed with terminology. I actually meant "interactors"
instead of listeners. An interactor is a command REPL, non
necessarily a Lisp one. A Listener is usually a Lisp REPL.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools:
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
jonathon wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out why all the free Lisp implementations are all
> command-line only, while the nice IDEs are commercial only. It doesn't
> seem to me there is One True GUI toolkit that is freely available and
> cross-platform (at least not yet, anyway) but it seems almost every
> other language out there has a few or even a number of free open source
> IDEs, or something in the works.
Hm, most of the free IDEs for other languages I know about are sponsored
heavily by large companies like Sun and IBM. I don't think we can
compete with them. Therefore, there seems to be a tendency to focus on
the essential functionality, which gives you SLIME. [1]
Can you cite examples of free IDEs that are really good but not backed
by loads of money? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
Pascal
[1] ...and on the other hand, there are projects like Aquamacs that turn
Emacs into a program that behaves mostly like an app for the underlying
OS should. So the situation isn't really that bad.
--
2nd European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
July 26 - Glasgow, Scotland - co-located with ECOOP 2005
http://lisp-ecoop05.bknr.net/
>Can you cite examples of free IDEs that are really good but not backed
>by loads of money? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
> Pascal
Gorm is very good.
http://www.gnustep.org/experience/Gorm.html
Gorm is GNUstep's version of NeXT/Apple's Interface Builder.
Note: First, I think Gorm is an exception to the rule and second, Gorm
is not a complete IDE. But it shows what can be done with a good
dynamic language; In Gorm's case, Objective-C. (OK... Objective-C has
no GC, no MI and still suffers from the edit/compile/run syndrome, but
it has a good runtime that allows for some nifty stuff. See
http://www.fscript.org for such nifty stuff.) Of course Lisp would be
better...
If you could start with a language as powerful as Lisp and a GUI
framework as elegant as OpenStep/Cocoa, then good free IDE's would be
approachable. Gorm is largely (perhaps entirely) the work of a single
developer. But this is a little like Steve Martin's "How to be a
millionaire and not pay taxes... First, get a million dollars." It has
taken several years for the GNUstep project to implement the Appkit and
to recreate it in Lisp would require a monumental effort. So, I largely
agree with Pascal.
> [1] ...and on the other hand, there are projects like Aquamacs that turn
> Emacs into a program that behaves mostly like an app for the underlying
> OS should. So the situation isn't really that bad.
I'm thankful for Aquamacs.
-Ken McKee
Ken McKee wrote:
> Gorm is very good.
> http://www.gnustep.org/experience/Gorm.html
> Gorm is GNUstep's version of NeXT/Apple's Interface Builder.
Objective-C was my toy before Python, and I thought Gorm was quite
cool. But I didn't like the lack of libraries for Unix and the fact
that the language is extremely verbose (long function names). Both
Python and Lisp are much more concise.
jonathon wrote:
> Ken McKee wrote:
>
>>Gorm is very good.
>>http://www.gnustep.org/experience/Gorm.html
>>Gorm is GNUstep's version of NeXT/Apple's Interface Builder.
>
>
> Objective-C was my toy before Python, and I thought Gorm was quite
> cool. But I didn't like the lack of libraries for Unix and the fact
> that the language is extremely verbose (long function names). Both
> Python and Lisp are much more concise.
With good name completion in your IDE (for instance XCode) the
long names actually help readability, just like Lisp keyword
arguments, IMHO.
I haven't tried any of the open-source Gnustep thingies, however.
--
By claiming a patent [...], I'm saying that you are not permitted
to use your own knowledge to further your ends. By what right?
Roderick T. Long
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wtnxkg0x.fsf@4dv.net>
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> I'm trying to figure out why all the free Lisp implementations are all
> command-line only, while the nice IDEs are commercial only.
[snip]
> Since Lisp *is* so powerful, I'm surprised that I haven't been able to
> find even some rudimentary clones of the Allegro/LispWorks style IDEs
> written in Lisp itself. Any idea why no one has undertaken this
> project, even just for one implementation and/or platform?
Visibility of Lisp. The vast majority of the free software community
IMHO is funded by Mom & Dad as well as Uncle Sam--i.e. students. I
could be wrong, and of course there are plenty who are funded by
companies. But most of those companies are funding back-office stuff.
Unfortunately Lisp isn't sexy enough yet to attract a very great deal of
notice.
But honestly, rather than hacking together a Windows-like IDE, consider
instead hacking GNU emacs and adding those features. The great thing
about emacs is that it runs just about everywhere, GUI or CLI, is free
and is Lisp. Okay, that's three things:-)
Seriously, though, once you've lived in emacs you never want to go back.
So extend emacs to do what you're looking for and life will be good.
Now if only someone would rewrite emacs in CL. Yes, there's climacs,
but they explicitly _don't_ want to be emacs. Which is sad.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
People who are willing to rely on the government to keep them safe are
pretty much standing on Darwin's mat, pounding on the door, screaming
`Take me, take me!' --Carl Jacobs
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d5ppc8yx.fsf@4dv.net>
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>
> Unfortunately Lisp isn't sexy enough yet to attract a very great deal
> of notice.
I hate to reply to myself, and it should be obvious from the context,
but of course I mean that Lisp isn't sexy enough to have attracted a
very great deal of notice from the sorts of folks who write GUI IDEs.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury.
--Alexander Tyler, eighteenth-century Scottish historian
On 9167 day of my life Robert Uhl wrote:
> Now if only someone would rewrite emacs in CL.
Do you mean implement ELisp interpreter/compiler in CL or replacing
ELisp with CL?
> Yes, there's climacs, but they explicitly _don't_ want to be emacs.
> Which is sad.
There is yet another project but climacs, but I do not remember any
name. :((( Try Google.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind."
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hdf1c94n.fsf@4dv.net>
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>
> > Now if only someone would rewrite emacs in CL.
>
> Do you mean implement ELisp interpreter/compiler in CL or replacing
> ELisp with CL?
In the long run, replacing elisp with Common Lisp; in the short run,
this would probably involve interpreting elisp in Common Lisp.
It'd be nice to have an emacs which still enabled me to browse the web,
read my mail, read news, edit & compile LaTeX & Lisp alike, interfaced
to info and so on, but did so in a compiled, multi-threaded language.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Debating Unix flavors in the context of anything Microsoft is like
talking about which ice cream flavor tastes least like sawdust with
turpentine sauce. --Joe Zeff
Robert Uhl wrote:
> It'd be nice to have an emacs which still enabled me to browse the web,
> read my mail, read news, edit & compile LaTeX & Lisp alike, interfaced
> to info and so on, but did so in a compiled, multi-threaded language.
It's really a shame that I finally decided to give up Xemacs and go
back to vim just before getting back into Lisp.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3slykxfsh.fsf@4dv.net>
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> > It'd be nice to have an emacs which still enabled me to browse the
> > web, read my mail, read news, edit & compile LaTeX & Lisp alike,
> > interfaced to info and so on, but did so in a compiled,
> > multi-threaded language.
>
> It's really a shame that I finally decided to give up Xemacs and go
> back to vim just before getting back into Lisp.
IMHO vi/nvi/vim/&c. are _excellent_ for sysadmin tasks, many of which
involve playing about on a line-by-line basis--something emacs doesn't
do so well. When hacking config files, yy, dd, ., : and so forth are
your friends. But when working with code of any sort (programming
languages, text markup and so forth), emacs is by far the best solution.
And the fact that it's so extensible means that I never have to leave it
(which means that the same keystrokes can do the same things in just
about every app). And it can run in a text console, which means that I
can have the same environment SSHed in from anywhere in the world that I
have sitting at home.
But I'll freely admit that its learning curve can be...interesting. But
once learnt, it's incredible easy to use.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
One doesn't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. One expects them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged.
--Michael Shirley
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <ubr58xcj2.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> IMHO vi/nvi/vim/&c. are _excellent_ for sysadmin tasks, many of which
> involve playing about on a line-by-line basis--something emacs doesn't
> do so well. When hacking config files, yy, dd, ., : and so forth are
> your friends. But when working with code of any sort (programming
> languages, text markup and so forth), emacs is by far the best solution.
I am curious what you mean by "line-by-line basis".
Can you describe what you're talking about here,
and how vi is superior to Emacs for those purposes?
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3oe98x800.fsf@4dv.net>
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
>> IMHO vi/nvi/vim/&c. are _excellent_ for sysadmin tasks, many of which
>> involve playing about on a line-by-line basis--something emacs
>> doesn't do so well. When hacking config files, yy, dd, ., : and so
>> forth are your friends. But when working with code of any sort
>> (programming languages, text markup and so forth), emacs is by far
>> the best solution.
>
> I am curious what you mean by "line-by-line basis". Can you describe
> what you're talking about here, and how vi is superior to Emacs for
> those purposes?
Sure thing. A lot of Unix config files are line-based: that is, each
line is a record, within which are various fields. Say I'm adding
filesystems to /etc/vfstab, which might look like this:
/dev/dsk/c2t0d500581834763s0 /dev/rdsk/c2t0d500581834763s0 /u01 ufs 1 no logging
/dev/dsk/c2t0d500581834763s1 /dev/rdsk/c2t0d500581834763s1 /u02 ufs 1 no logging
And so on. I can grab a line with yy, then hit 6p to paste it in 6
times; in emacs this would be C-a, then M-SPC, then C-e, then M-w (to
copy), then M-6 C-y (to paste 6 times).
In vi, I'd then hit e a few times to get to the number following the s
in the first device file's path, then hit r and a number to replace it,
then hit e a few more times to get to the next device file's name and
hit . to repeat the last command. I'd then hit e once more, then
replace as much of the mountpoint's name as necessary. In emacs, I'd
hit M-f a few times to get to the end, then DEL to delete a character,
then the replacement number, then M-f a few more times, then DEL again,
then the number again, then M-f once more, then DEL, then type in the
new number.
Like I wrote, I love emacs, but for the particular tasks peculiar to
system administration vi wins. OTOH, M-x shell-script-mode is
wonderful.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves
largess out of the public treasury.
--Alexander Tyler, eighteenth-century Scottish historian
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <ud5pnx5k7.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Robert Uhl <·········@ABFCNZtznvy.pbz> [2005-07-12 11:13:35 -0600]:
>
>
> /dev/dsk/c2t0d500581834763s0 /dev/rdsk/c2t0d500581834763s0 /u01 ufs 1 no logging
> /dev/dsk/c2t0d500581834763s1 /dev/rdsk/c2t0d500581834763s1 /u02 ufs 1 no logging
>
> And so on. I can grab a line with yy, then hit 6p to paste it in 6
> times; in emacs this would be C-a, then M-SPC, then C-e, then M-w (to
> copy), then M-6 C-y (to paste 6 times).
C-a C-k C-y C-y C-y C-y C-y C-y C-y
1. (setq kill-whole-line t)
2. M-6 C-y will not insert 6 times - it will insert the 6th oldest kill
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.palestinefacts.org/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
<http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/> <http://www.camera.org>
When we break the law, they fine us, when we comply, they tax us.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d5pnyfk1.fsf@4dv.net>
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
>
> 2. M-6 C-y will not insert 6 times - it will insert the 6th oldest kill
You are, of course, correct. I normally just hit C-y the appropriate
number of times.
This is actually another pet peeve of mine: sometimes numeric prefixes
mean to do something some number of times; sometimes the mean something
else. It's rather a hassle.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The strongest reason for the right for the people to bear arms is, as a
last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>Like I wrote, I love emacs, but for the particular tasks peculiar to
>system administration vi wins. OTOH, M-x shell-script-mode is
>wonderful.
I've long wanted an ed-mode in emacs... not quite the same what you
talked about but the line copying would be similar (ka, 'at, t, t,
...). You would have a buffer for interpreting ed (or ex, or similar)
commands, and they would operate on the last visited buffer, or so, a
bit like Plan9's sam[1]. That would imho add significant core
functionality to emacs, and one could avoid having to save a file, and
fire up vi or ed on it to do bulk editing, and then reload it in
emacs. Unfortunately, I haven't found anything like it yet and I don't
have the time to do it myself. Maybe some day I will.
mkb.
[1] Actually, I'd like an editor in the style of sam, but not
hardcoded in C but based on a lightweight, small Lisp or Scheme to be
extensible like Emacs. The whole thing ought to be very clean, very
consistent, especially the user interface and command set, and with a
rather minimal core, and of course portable, robust, fast, etc.
On 9168 day of my life ···········@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>> It'd be nice to have an emacs which still enabled me to browse the web,
>> read my mail, read news, edit & compile LaTeX & Lisp alike, interfaced
>> to info and so on, but did so in a compiled, multi-threaded language.
>
> It's really a shame that I finally decided to give up Xemacs and go
> back to vim just before getting back into Lisp.
I use both vim and Emacs and I am satisfied :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Is 'morning' a gerund?
On 9168 day of my life ···········@bigfoot.com wrote:
> Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
>> I use both vim and Emacs and I am satisfied :)
>
> What is your system? I'd be curious to know.
Gentoo Linux. Celeron 1000, 256Mb. Kinda old, but Emacs runs well :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Perl is a language where 2 x 2 is not equal to 4.
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>I use both vim and Emacs and I am satisfied :)
I like neither but use both aswell ;-).
mkb.
From: Wolfgang Mederle
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3zmsqqrnu.fsf@taegu.mederle.de>
Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
> I use both vim and Emacs and I am satisfied :)
I recently had to work on a machine with a broken vi and no Emacs. ed is
the standard text editor.
--
Wolfgang Mederle
<URL:http://mederle.de/>
<URL:http://homepage.mac.com/madearl/>
ICQ# 1435333
Wolfgang Mederle <·······················@gmx.de> wrote:
>I recently had to work on a machine with a broken vi and no Emacs. ed is
>the standard text editor.
All hail ed!
mkb.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <uvf3e3r9n.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Wolfgang Mederle <·······················@gmx.de> writes:
> Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
>
> > I use both vim and Emacs and I am satisfied :)
>
> I recently had to work on a machine with a broken vi and no Emacs.
> ed is the standard text editor.
And it had no peripherals, so you couldn't run Emacs
off a CD? (Or an entire Lisp environment for that matter?)
I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
You could put quite a lot of stuff on a USB thumb drive, too.
In article <·············@news.dtpq.com>,
Christopher C. Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
> I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
> which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
> system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
Nano is a slightly extended version of Pico, which was basically Pine's
built-in editor. I believe the only reason it comes standard on many
distributions is that it's so simple it really has no learning curve.
All of its commands are listed on the bottom two lines of the screen by
default.
Nano's command repertoire:
^O WriteOut ^_ Goto Line ^R Read File ^Y Prev Page ^K Cut Text ^C Cur Pos
^X Exit ^\ Replace ^W Where Is ^V Next Page ^U UnCut Txt ^T To Spell
-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>
Brian Downing <·············@lavos.net> writes:
> In article <·············@news.dtpq.com>,
> Christopher C. Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
>> which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
>> system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
>
> Nano is a slightly extended version of Pico, which was basically Pine's
> built-in editor. I believe the only reason it comes standard on many
> distributions is that it's so simple it really has no learning curve.
> All of its commands are listed on the bottom two lines of the screen by
> default.
>
> Nano's command repertoire:
> ^O WriteOut ^_ Goto Line ^R Read File ^Y Prev Page ^K Cut Text ^C Cur Pos
> ^X Exit ^\ Replace ^W Where Is ^V Next Page ^U UnCut Txt ^T To Spell
Actually, it HAS a learning curve. Try to type C-x C-s to save your file!
Even before I complete the installation of a new system I install
emacs to avoid any cockpit error while installing and configuring the
new system.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d? s++:++ a+ C+++ UL++++ P--- L+++ E+++ W++ N+++ o-- K- w---
O- M++ V PS PE++ Y++ PGP t+ 5+ X++ R !tv b+++ DI++++ D++
G e+++ h+ r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Christopher C. Stacy <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote:
>I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
>which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
>system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
I would _think_ that if vi cannot run (most likely due to terminal
problems), then other editors cannot run either, except ed-style
line editors (which do not need cursor addressing).
mkb.
From: Wolfgang Mederle
Subject: Re: Allegro/LispWorks-like free IDE anytime soon?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3r7e1fapl.fsf@taegu.mederle.de>
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
> And it had no peripherals, so you couldn't run Emacs
> off a CD? (Or an entire Lisp environment for that matter?)
The machine is in Oslo, and I was logged in via ssh from Munich. The vi
(probably vim) was linked against a missing libperl.so. I could have
tried Emacs/Tramp, though, which I use frequently, but I just had to
change one line in a config file, and with ed I was done before I would
have had Tramp initialized. Including reading the man page. :-)
> I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
> which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
> system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
>
> You could put quite a lot of stuff on a USB thumb drive, too.
Now that you mention it, I wonder whether I could fit a CL environment
on my iPod Shuffle. Ah, the geek factor!
--
Wolfgang Mederle
<URL:http://mederle.de/>
<URL:http://homepage.mac.com/madearl/>
ICQ# 1435333
Wolfgang Mederle <·······················@gmx.de> writes:
> Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>
>> And it had no peripherals, so you couldn't run Emacs
>> off a CD? (Or an entire Lisp environment for that matter?)
>
> The machine is in Oslo, and I was logged in via ssh from Munich. The vi
> (probably vim) was linked against a missing libperl.so. I could have
> tried Emacs/Tramp, though, which I use frequently, but I just had to
> change one line in a config file, and with ed I was done before I would
> have had Tramp initialized. Including reading the man page. :-)
>
>> I noticed that Linux now seems to come with an editor called "nano",
>> which is a little tiny ersatz Emacs; it's intended for editing
>> system files, early in the configuration/bootstrap process.
>>
>> You could put quite a lot of stuff on a USB thumb drive, too.
>
> Now that you mention it, I wonder whether I could fit a CL environment
> on my iPod Shuffle. Ah, the geek factor!
An iPod shuffle would not have enough space... you would
probably have to go for a RAID-5 configuration of shuffles, which,
happily, have even higher geek factor.
--
Raymond Wiker
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> It'd be nice to have an emacs which still enabled me to browse the web,
> read my mail, read news, edit & compile LaTeX & Lisp alike, interfaced
> to info and so on, but did so in a compiled, multi-threaded language.
Check out armedbear-j. I'm not sure about LaTeX and news, but it's got
(AB)CL under its hood, so it's at least theoretically possible to
extend in CL.
Andras
>
> --
> Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> Debating Unix flavors in the context of anything Microsoft is like
> talking about which ice cream flavor tastes least like sawdust with
> turpentine sauce. --Joe Zeff
On 9167 day of my life ······@hexapodia.net wrote:
>> > Yes, there's climacs, but they explicitly _don't_ want to be emacs.
>> > Which is sad.
>>
>> There is yet another project but climacs, but I do not remember any
>> name. :((( Try Google.
>
> There's Hemlock (well, Portable Hemlock).
I mean yet another project, which tries to implement something
Emacs-compatible; Hemlock is not Emacs-compatible
--
ivan Boldyrev
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
>
> I mean yet another project, which tries to implement something
> Emacs-compatible; Hemlock is not Emacs-compatible
>
Perhaps you are thinking of "Lisp Computing Environment (LiCE)"
available from http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/. Its an emacs clone in CL
that has been known to run on Movitz! Now that's cool.
drewc
--
Drew Crampsie
drewc at tech dot coop
"Never mind the bollocks -- here's the sexp's tools."
-- Karl A. Krueger on comp.lang.lisp
On 9169 day of my life ·····@rift.com wrote:
> Perhaps you are thinking of "Lisp Computing Environment (LiCE)"
> available from http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/. Its an emacs clone in CL
> that has been known to run on Movitz! Now that's cool.
Most probably :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Sorry my terrible English, my native language is Lisp!