Because free trade has driven the price of eggs so low that it's more
profitable to send other parts of the animal overseas, esp. to China
where odd parts like lips are more palatable.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if lisp is more productive hen why dont lisp corps dominate?
Date:
Message-ID: <v9VAg.108$9T2.96@fe10.lga>
gavino wrote:
> just a thought
>
very original, tho.
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:06:48 -0700, gavino wrote:
> just a thought
And here are some more mysteries for you to ponder:
* If the food at Wendy's is better than McDonald's then
why do more people eat at McDonald's?
* If smoking is bad for you, why do so many people do it
anyway?
* If George Bush is an idiot, why did Americans vote him
back into office?
etc. etc.
Bottom line: the world is a deeply messed up place, and
common sense is about as common as lottery millionaires.
Lisp is so productive that lisp companies survive with price policies
that would have driven them off bussiness selling any other language or
programming tool.
In other words, some people still pay $1500+ for lisp even if other
languages IDEs have a price of $300 for the most expensive setup.
So they don't have an incentive to be more competitive.
Nicolay Giraldo wrote:
> But for Java I don't have to pay that kind of money to get a full IDE
> like Eclipse.
What are the other productive IDEs are available for Lisp apart from
Emacs + Slime, for the same price point ($0)? Being an advanced VIM
user I have not yet got used to the universe of C-X+ in emacs, or the
annoyance of doing everything in the insert mode (paying up with more
double keystrokes for everything).
A good post about recommended development environment was on this blog
page by Bill Clementson, but it was mostly emacs there for IDEs.
http://bc.tech.coop/blog/041023.html
Alok
Alok wrote:
> Nicolay Giraldo wrote:
> > But for Java I don't have to pay that kind of money to get a full IDE
> > like Eclipse.
>
> What are the other productive IDEs are available for Lisp apart from
> Emacs + Slime, for the same price point ($0)? Being an advanced VIM
> user I have not yet got used to the universe of C-X+ in emacs, or the
> annoyance of doing everything in the insert mode (paying up with more
> double keystrokes for everything).
>
> A good post about recommended development environment was on this blog
> page by Bill Clementson, but it was mostly emacs there for IDEs.
>
> http://bc.tech.coop/blog/041023.html
>
> Alok
LispWorks Personal (since you said $0), or LispWorks Professional if
you remove that restriction.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> LispWorks Personal (since you said $0), or LispWorks Professional if
> you remove that restriction.
Thanks for the reference, but a restriction list is also relevant for
others sonemone want to consider this.
From
http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/
# There is a heap size limit which, if exceeded, causes the image to
exit. A warning is provided when the limit is approached.
# There is a time limit of 5 hours for each session, after which the
image is exited. You are warned after 4 hours of use.
# The functions save-image, deliver, and load-all-patches are not
available.
# Initialization files are not loaded.
# Layered product loading is not included i.e. CLIM, KnowledgeWorks,
SQL/ODBC, and CORBA are not available.
Not very attractive for development is it? Maybe a good code viewer
though, but I haven't tried it yet to recommend either way.
Alok
Alok wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > LispWorks Personal (since you said $0), or LispWorks Professional if
> > you remove that restriction.
>
> Thanks for the reference, but a restriction list is also relevant for
> others sonemone want to consider this.
>
> From
> http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/
>
> # There is a heap size limit which, if exceeded, causes the image to
> exit. A warning is provided when the limit is approached.
> # There is a time limit of 5 hours for each session, after which the
> image is exited. You are warned after 4 hours of use.
> # The functions save-image, deliver, and load-all-patches are not
> available.
> # Initialization files are not loaded.
> # Layered product loading is not included i.e. CLIM, KnowledgeWorks,
> SQL/ODBC, and CORBA are not available.
>
> Not very attractive for development is it? Maybe a good code viewer
> though, but I haven't tried it yet to recommend either way.
>
> Alok
Not very *un*attractive either. The personal edition is of course
going to be missing features that you're expected to pay for (does lack
of CLIM or lack of application delivery really make it harder to use
Personal for development?). Re-entering the IDE every five hours and
doing an M-x Load File ~/.lispworks RET when starting are minor
nuisances. The heap limit is the only restriction that's really
difficult to get by with. But you get a graphical stepper and
debugger, class and generic function browser, and various other fun
things.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> Not very *un*attractive either. The personal edition is of course
> going to be missing features that you're expected to pay for (does lack
> of CLIM or lack of application delivery really make it harder to use
> Personal for development?). Re-entering the IDE every five hours and
> doing an M-x Load File ~/.lispworks RET when starting are minor
> nuisances. The heap limit is the only restriction that's really
> difficult to get by with.
I am new to Lisp, but the heap size sounds limiting for anything
serious.
http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/pipermail/act-r-users/2004-January/000802.html
The download page http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/ does not specify
the actual size that the heap is limited to. Do you know what the limit
size is?
> But you get a graphical stepper and
> debugger, class and generic function browser, and various other fun
> things.
Would be useful to run this, if only to compare the differences of the
paid product from those available without any charges.
Alok.
Alok wrote:
> Nicolay Giraldo wrote:
> > But for Java I don't have to pay that kind of money to get a full IDE
> > like Eclipse.
>
> What are the other productive IDEs are available for Lisp apart from
> Emacs + Slime, for the same price point ($0)? Being an advanced VIM
> user I have not yet got used to the universe of C-X+ in emacs, or the
> annoyance of doing everything in the insert mode (paying up with more
> double keystrokes for everything).
I do not think there are many other free IDEs for Lisp. But give Slime
a chance; it's easy to supply your own keybindings for stuff if that is
mainly your problem with Slime or emacs in general.
--
mvh, Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
>But give Slime a chance;
Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
> it's easy to supply your own keybindings for stuff if that is
> mainly your problem with Slime or emacs in general.
I have tried Viper, and it is okay to an extent. But it simply does not
match the anyway near the convenience of VIM. Mostly I would really
like to see Slime on VIM, and I am aware of Slim-Vim
http://wiki.alu.org/Slim-Vim and other such projects, but have not
tried them yet.
Alok
Alok wrote:
> Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
> >But give Slime a chance;
> Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
> finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
>
> > it's easy to supply your own keybindings for stuff if that is
> > mainly your problem with Slime or emacs in general.
>
> I have tried Viper, and it is okay to an extent. But it simply does not
> match the anyway near the convenience of VIM. Mostly I would really
> like to see Slime on VIM, and I am aware of Slim-Vim
> http://wiki.alu.org/Slim-Vim and other such projects, but have not
> tried them yet.
>
> Alok
Please do try Slim-Vim. I'm one of the authors and we are constantly
adding new features. At the moment we cover most of the everyday
features of Slime (debugging, inspecting, compiling, compiler error
handling), though there are probably still bugs and features that we
don't yet implement. I'm getting to the stage where I would like to
announce Slim-Vim to CLL within the next few weeks.
Oh, and it costs $0 :)
Cheers
Brad
bradb wrote:
> Please do try Slim-Vim.
The main reason I had put off using Slim-Vim was the need for VIM with
ECL. I did not yet want to go through recompiling VIM with ECL, intead
of what I already use.
Can the client portion of Slime not be ported to or run in mzscheme?
There is support for execution of mzscheme scripts in VIM, out of the
box.
> I'm one of the authors and we are constantly
> adding new features. At the moment we cover most of the everyday
> features of Slime (debugging, inspecting, compiling, compiler error
> handling), though there are probably still bugs and features that we
> don't yet implement. I'm getting to the stage where I would like to
> announce Slim-Vim to CLL within the next few weeks.
This sounds good. I am thinking about downloading Slim-Vim as I write
this.
Found the download link at
http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl.tgz
The Slim-Vim Repository at http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl/
however seems to be a darcs repository. And I cannot use it at the
moment (don't have (or want to have) a client installed for it)
> Oh, and it costs $0 :)
May the number of Slim-Vim users be inversely proportional to its price
point :-)
Cheers,
Alok.
Alok wrote:
> bradb wrote:
> > Please do try Slim-Vim.
>
> The main reason I had put off using Slim-Vim was the need for VIM with
> ECL. I did not yet want to go through recompiling VIM with ECL, intead
> of what I already use.
That is a valid point, we can help a little by providing various
platform binaries, but we aren't large enough at the moment. An end
goal would be to have ECL support rolled into the main Vim tree.
> Can the client portion of Slime not be ported to or run in mzscheme?
> There is support for execution of mzscheme scripts in VIM, out of the
> box.
It potentially could, and that could be a solution too. There are no
plans for it at the moment though. The Slime code that we work from is
written in EmacsLisp, and uses some quite fancy macros - from what
little I know of Scheme, converting the macros could be impossible.
>
> > I'm one of the authors and we are constantly
> > adding new features. At the moment we cover most of the everyday
> > features of Slime (debugging, inspecting, compiling, compiler error
> > handling), though there are probably still bugs and features that we
> > don't yet implement. I'm getting to the stage where I would like to
> > announce Slim-Vim to CLL within the next few weeks.
>
> This sounds good. I am thinking about downloading Slim-Vim as I write
> this.
> Found the download link at
> http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl.tgz
I'm not 100% sure that the tarball above will be the latest from the
Darcs repo, so I would still recommend using Darcs if you can.
> The Slim-Vim Repository at http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl/
> however seems to be a darcs repository. And I cannot use it at the
> moment (don't have (or want to have) a client installed for it)
This is my first time using Darcs, I've found it to be pretty good
really. For a project like ours that hasn't hit any stable milestones
yet, getting the latest source will be the best way to go.
>
> > Oh, and it costs $0 :)
>
> May the number of Slim-Vim users be inversely proportional to its price
> point :-)
Here's hoping!
Cheers
Brad
On 2006-08-07, bradb <··············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>> bradb wrote:
>> > Please do try Slim-Vim.
>>
>> The main reason I had put off using Slim-Vim was the need for VIM
>> with ECL. I did not yet want to go through recompiling VIM with
>> ECL, intead of what I already use.
> That is a valid point, we can help a little by providing various
> platform binaries, but we aren't large enough at the moment. An end
> goal would be to have ECL support rolled into the main Vim tree.
The Vim part of the code has gotten pretty stable (knock on wood). I
can probably post binaries for Linux & Win32 for both Vim and ECL some
time this week.
>> > I'm one of the authors and we are constantly adding new features.
>> > At the moment we cover most of the everyday features of Slime
>> > (debugging, inspecting, compiling, compiler error handling),
>> > though there are probably still bugs and features that we don't
>> > yet implement. I'm getting to the stage where I would like to
>> > announce Slim-Vim to CLL within the next few weeks.
>>
>> This sounds good. I am thinking about downloading Slim-Vim as I
>> write this.
>> Found the download link at
>> http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl.tgz
> I'm not 100% sure that the tarball above will be the latest from the
> Darcs repo, so I would still recommend using Darcs if you can.
I refreshed the tarball and set up a cronjob to refresh it daily.
>> The Slim-Vim Repository at
>> http://theclapp.org/repos/vim70+async+ecl/ however seems to be a
>> darcs repository. And I cannot use it at the moment (don't have (or
>> want to have) a client installed for it)
>
> This is my first time using Darcs, I've found it to be pretty good
> really. For a project like ours that hasn't hit any stable
> milestones yet, getting the latest source will be the best way to
> go.
I like darcs too. That said, the above tarball does not include the
Darcs-related part of the tree. Also, Darcs repositories are easily
crawlable, so if you had the appropriate utilities (e.g. wget, which
can do a recursive get) you could just grab the whole tree that way.
>> > Oh, and it costs $0 :)
>>
>> May the number of Slim-Vim users be inversely proportional to its
>> price point :-)
>
> Here's hoping!
Infinite users is too many. :)
-- L
Larry Clapp wrote:
> I refreshed the tarball and set up a cronjob to refresh it daily.
cheers
> I like darcs too. That said, the above tarball does not include the
> Darcs-related part of the tree. Also, Darcs repositories are easily
> crawlable, so if you had the appropriate utilities (e.g. wget, which
> can do a recursive get) you could just grab the whole tree that way.
I have just downloaded two Subversion clients on my Windows partition.
RapidSVN which crashed repeatedly on checking out a Google code hosting
repository via https URL and TortoiseSVN, which I am having second
thoughts installing. It extends the windows explorer shell interface
and, I risk crashing explorer even more frequently than it already
does. Ah! the joy of using software ...
And hence the reluctance to bloat my computer with more seldom used
software. (It is already bulging at its seams)
> >> > Oh, and it costs $0 :)
> >>
> >> May the number of Slim-Vim users be inversely proportional to its
> >> price point :-)
> >
> > Here's hoping!
>
> Infinite users is too many. :)
But Infinite is still infinte lesser than infinte .... :-D
Alok
Le Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:50:50 +0000, Larry Clapp a écrit :
> The Vim part of the code has gotten pretty stable (knock on wood). I
> can probably post binaries for Linux & Win32 for both Vim and ECL some
> time this week.
Couldn't Vim+ECL be made just a Common Lisp binding for Vim, as for
Perl, Python, Tcl and Ruby? On Debian, they exist as separate packages
that don't conflict with each other.
So maybe it would be possible to just distribute the binding, instead of
a full replacement of the Vim runtime.
I don't know if it's already the case, but making Vim+ECL a Vim Common
Lisp binding is by itself a great thing...
Doubtfully,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
On 2006-08-07, Pierre THIERRY <···········@levallois.eu.org> wrote:
> Le Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:50:50 +0000, Larry Clapp a �crit�:
>> The Vim part of the code has gotten pretty stable (knock on wood).
>> I can probably post binaries for Linux & Win32 for both Vim and ECL
>> some time this week.
>
> Couldn't Vim+ECL be made just a Common Lisp binding for Vim, as for
> Perl, Python, Tcl and Ruby? On Debian, they exist as separate
> packages that don't conflict with each other.
Yes, I know, I run Debian too. On Debian if you follow the chain of
symlinks you will find
/usr/bin/vim
-> /etc/alternatives/vim
-> /usr/bin/vim.{perl|python|tcl|ruby|etc}
In short, they are all their own executables, not separate libraries.
Vim+ECL is not statically linked to ECL -- it still uses
/usr/lib/ecl/libecl.so -- but it still opens the library as soon as
you load the executable, just like with most other shared libraries
(libc/libm/etc). The code to open the shared library (or DLL on
Windows) is about 200 lines in the if_python module (iirc), 200 lines
that nobody's had the gumption to study enough to transliterate into
the if_ecl module.
> So maybe it would be possible to just distribute the binding,
> instead of a full replacement of the Vim runtime.
When we distribute the Vim+ECL binary, it will be just the Vim
executable and associated .lisp files (and help files); you'll have to
get the rest of Vim elsewhere.
Actually, I'm ahead of myself -- I'm not sure what you mean by a
"binding for Vim, as for Perl, Python, Tcl, and Ruby"? You seem to be
under the impression that you have one Vim executable and it loads
various external modules that tell it how to talk to Perl/Python/etc.
That's not the case. See above.
> I don't know if it's already the case, but making Vim+ECL a Vim
> Common Lisp binding is by itself a great thing...
All in good time.
In the mean time, we'd welcome any participants in the Vim+ECL /
Slim-Vim project.
-- Larry
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: if lisp is more productive hen why dont lisp corps dominate?
Date:
Message-ID: <87vep1vdk1.fsf@david-steuber.com>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
> In the mean time, we'd welcome any participants in the Vim+ECL /
> Slim-Vim project.
When it comes to creating a logo for the project, you don't plan to
use a rolled up piece of meat, do you? ;-)
--
The lithobraker. Zero distance stops at any speed.
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
On 2006-08-09, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
>> In the mean time, we'd welcome any participants in the Vim+ECL /
>> Slim-Vim project.
>
> When it comes to creating a logo for the project, you don't plan to
> use a rolled up piece of meat, do you? ;-)
:)
We'll probably just take a stylized V and drape slime all over it.
Kind of the "Married With Children" look.
*laugh* Or not.
Alok wrote:
> Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
> finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
Emacs was designed on machines which placed the ctrl key where PC
keyboards put caps lock... After switching the bindings for those two,
my pinky pains went away.
D Herring wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>> Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
>> finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
>
> Emacs was designed on machines which placed the ctrl key where PC
> keyboards put caps lock... After switching the bindings for those
> two, my pinky pains went away.
Indeed, and highly recommended.
Sometimes not an option if you're at someone else's console,
though, so can I just note another thing that some people don't
seem to realise - a major reason there's left and right modifier
keyas on most keyboards is so that when you're shifting/ctrling a key,
you can use one hand for the key, and *use the other hand* for
shift/ctrl.
I was taught to do that (for whatever reason our secondary school taught
everyone touch typing). When I watch someone who's been moaning about
typing emacs keyboard shortcuts, they're e.g. doing something quite
uncomfortable looking involving somehow twisting their wrist to reach
the left bottom (i.e. PC-style) ctrl key with their little finger while
using another left hand finger to press a key.
(Using your left hand little finger to press a remapped ctrl key that's
next to "A" while pressing another key with a left hand finger is far
more forgivable, of course)
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Don't do that then."
David Golden wrote:
> D Herring wrote:
>
>> Alok wrote:
>>> Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
>>> finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
>> Emacs was designed on machines which placed the ctrl key where PC
>> keyboards put caps lock... After switching the bindings for those
>> two, my pinky pains went away.
>
> Indeed, and highly recommended.
>
> Sometimes not an option if you're at someone else's console,
> though, so can I just note another thing that some people don't
> seem to realise - a major reason there's left and right modifier
> keyas on most keyboards is so that when you're shifting/ctrling a key,
> you can use one hand for the key, and *use the other hand* for
> shift/ctrl.
>
> I was taught to do that (for whatever reason our secondary school taught
> everyone touch typing). When I watch someone who's been moaning about
> typing emacs keyboard shortcuts, they're e.g. doing something quite
> uncomfortable looking involving somehow twisting their wrist to reach
> the left bottom (i.e. PC-style) ctrl key with their little finger while
> using another left hand finger to press a key.
>
> (Using your left hand little finger to press a remapped ctrl key that's
> next to "A" while pressing another key with a left hand finger is far
> more forgivable, of course)
>
> "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
> "Don't do that then."
>
>
>
>
>
Can I remap the key from within emacs, or do I have to do it from X?
Jeff Heard wrote:
> Can I remap the key from within emacs, or do I have to do it from X?
Windows users can find this useful
Make Caps-lock behave like Ctrl
http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/win32-cheat.html#ctrl
Alok.
Jeff Heard wrote:
> Can I remap the key from within emacs, or do I have to do it from X?
I dunno, maybe. But then you might confuse the brain when you use
applications other than emacs anyway...
For doing it in X, assuming you're using x.org like most people these
days - add
Option "XkbOptions" "ctrl:nocaps"
to the InputDevice section of your /etc/X11/xorg.conf corresponding
to your keyboard. Same option exists for most XFree & X.org -like
forks, though some have an older syntax config. It's likely
KDE has some foofy GUI to do it nowadays.
ctrl:swapcaps will swap ctrl and caps lock rather than making them all
ctrl.
David Golden wrote:
> so can I just note another thing that some people don't
> seem to realise - a major reason there's left and right modifier
> keyas on most keyboards is so that when you're shifting/ctrling a key,
> you can use one hand for the key, and *use the other hand* for
> shift/ctrl.
Lets take a quick poll here.
For scrolling page down, I use
a) Page-Down
b) RIGHT_CTRL-V
c) LEFT_CTRL-V
If you say
a) I think you don't hack enough.
b) I think you don't think you hack near enough. (Infact just tried
this now, and this is worse than LEFT_CTRL-V, cause the RIGHT CTRL is
farther from J than F is from LEFT CTRL (read more painful) )
c) You get a lot of pinky pressure.
*) What the heck are you doing, thats non-standard and not portable
software engineering.
Just a thought.
Alok.
Alok wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
> > so can I just note another thing that some people don't
> > seem to realise - a major reason there's left and right modifier
> > keyas on most keyboards is so that when you're shifting/ctrling a key,
> > you can use one hand for the key, and *use the other hand* for
> > shift/ctrl.
>
> Lets take a quick poll here.
>
> For scrolling page down, I use
>
> a) Page-Down
a) most of the time
If your looking at something a page at a time then you're viewing it.
If I'm viewing something then I have pgup-pgdown in my left hand and a
cup of tea in my right hand. If I'm not viewing something, I'm editing
it, then I use C-x / and C-x j in preference to C-v and it's like.
I don't think problem is C-v anyway, it's C-t and C-g. I hit these in
ways that are far from efficient touch-typing. But they're not so
common so it doesn't cause any real slowdown.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> I have pgup-pgdown in my left hand and a
> cup of tea in my right hand.
You seem to have an odd keyboard. I am drinking my tea right now am
typing this with my right hand. The Pageup-Pagedown keys are way too
far on the right to conveniently use them with the left hand. Unless
you shift your keyboard also.
> If I'm not viewing something, I'm editing
> it, then I use C-x / and C-x j in preference to C-v and it's like.
More keystrokes, I hate 'em. If only I could simply talk to my code
editor. Maybe when I am too old ....
Alok wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>> I have pgup-pgdown in my left hand and a
>> cup of tea in my right hand.
>
> You seem to have an odd keyboard. I am drinking my tea right now am
> typing this with my right hand. The Pageup-Pagedown keys are way too
> far on the right to conveniently use them with the left hand. Unless
> you shift your keyboard also.
>
Maybe you're just small relative to your keyboard? Not trying to be
funny, if you're a physically small person, guess you might need a
smaller keyboard... It's certainly not particularly inconvenient for
_me_ to move my left hand to PgUp/PgDown, anyway.
I'm using a classic IBM-style clicky keyboard from pckeyboard.com, think
I'm about as wide as the keyboard unit (incl. numpad) across the
shoulders, that might even be a reasonable rule of thumb I guess.
All the same, I'd be way more likely to hold a drink with my left hand
and use pgup/pgdown with my right...
(If you use a keyboard a lot, it's well worth spending a reasonable
amount on it. That's another thing that can cause you damage - shoddy
$5 membrane keyboards...)
David Golden wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>
> > Rob Thorpe wrote:
> >> I have pgup-pgdown in my left hand and a
> >> cup of tea in my right hand.
> >
> > You seem to have an odd keyboard. I am drinking my tea right now am
> > typing this with my right hand. The Pageup-Pagedown keys are way too
> > far on the right to conveniently use them with the left hand. Unless
> > you shift your keyboard also.
> >
>
> Maybe you're just small relative to your keyboard? Not trying to be
> funny, if you're a physically small person, guess you might need a
> smaller keyboard... It's certainly not particularly inconvenient for
> _me_ to move my left hand to PgUp/PgDown, anyway.
I use at least 3 different keyboard with different sizes at work and
home, and all of them have the pageup-pagedn keys on the far right.
While it is not particularly inconvenient to use the left had to press
them, it is most certainly not the most comfortable. (We seem to be
digressing a lot from Lisp here, but anyway ... )
> All the same, I'd be way more likely to hold a drink with my left hand
> and use pgup/pgdown with my right...
This is quite the opposite to what you posted before and hence my
response out of curiosity ...
>
> (If you use a keyboard a lot, it's well worth spending a reasonable
> amount on it. That's another thing that can cause you damage - shoddy
> $5 membrane keyboards...)
I completely agree with you here. I have a wrist pad below my keyboard
on my table and quite like it.
Alok wrote:
> This is quite the opposite to what you posted before and hence my
> response out of curiosity ...
Nah, if I'm holding a drink with one hand, chances are I'm sipping
a coffee while reading through a PDF. Different use case to editing
a file...
> I have a wrist pad below my keyboard on my table and quite like it.
Hmm.�Not sure about wrist pads, actually - they should only be
used as somewhere to put your hands while you're _not_ typing
in most cases, I think.
ObLisp:
Versor is an addon for emacs that enables cursor-keys-like
navigation through structural elements of text or lisp code. Might save
keystrokes. It's immature code and doesn't play nice with
slime, though.
http://emacs-versor.sourceforge.net/
Alok wrote:
>
> b) I think you don't think you hack near enough. (Infact just tried
> this now, and this is worse than LEFT_CTRL-V, cause the RIGHT CTRL is
> farther from J than F is from LEFT CTRL (read more painful) )
>
You can move your right hand down a bit, because you're not trying
to press a key on the main keypad, you don't have to stretch from
the home row* like you do if you're trying to press a key and stretch
for the modifier with the same hand.
(*sticking like glue to the home row is something that some touch typing
teachers might insist on I guess, but it's not always good, especially
if you've got small hands - the important thing if you are moving from
the home row is to move your arms to move your hands around, not bend
your wrists - think about the mechanics of your fingers, moved by
tendons running from your arm along your wrists...)
Anyway, in that specific case, I guess I myself tend to do
d) LEFT_CTRL_WHERE_CAPS_LOCK_WAS-V
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: if lisp is more productive hen why dont lisp corps dominate?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.td90bufwpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:49:13 +0200, D Herring <········@at.uiuc.dot.edu>
wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>> Mostly use Slime these days for Lisp, and have a very sore little
>> finger, being constantly on the ctrl key ;-)
>
> Emacs was designed on machines which placed the ctrl key where PC
> keyboards put caps lock... After switching the bindings for those two,
> my pinky pains went away.
I learned programming using C/C++ on a Norwegian keyboard.
As such I probably have a deranged style.
But it is fast and i have never had any 'pinky' problems.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I think i've used vi about 3 times in my life, and i normally use ex or
sed
to edit my .emacs file when emacs won't start. I've always used emacs
or an emacs clone. So i cannot really empathize with what people find
strange
or difficult with it. However, i can accept that my view is a
minority view becuase
i've heard many people complain about it and many very intelligent
people
as well.
What puzzles me is that if people program in java they want to use
an IDE such as Jbuilder or somthing fancy, and do not want
to use a simple editor like vim or nedit, but when they edit lisp
they want to use the stupidest editor they can find.
I'd love to hear comments from someone who is an experienced
Jbuilder (or some java ide) user and also an experienced emacs user.
What are the cool features of other IDEs which are missing from emacs.
-jim
Alok wrote:
> Nicolay Giraldo wrote:
> > But for Java I don't have to pay that kind of money to get a full IDE
> > like Eclipse.
>
> What are the other productive IDEs are available for Lisp apart from
> Emacs + Slime, for the same price point ($0)? Being an advanced VIM
> user I have not yet got used to the universe of C-X+ in emacs, or the
> annoyance of doing everything in the insert mode (paying up with more
> double keystrokes for everything).
>
> A good post about recommended development environment was on this blog
> page by Bill Clementson, but it was mostly emacs there for IDEs.
>
> http://bc.tech.coop/blog/041023.html
>
> Alok
Jimka wrote:
> I'd love to hear comments from someone who is an experienced
> Jbuilder (or some java ide) user and also an experienced emacs user.
> What are the cool features of other IDEs which are missing from emacs.
All my colleagues at work use KDevelop, whereas I am mostly on VIM 7.
Its mostly to do with the advanced editing features like folding,
:diff, :g, :vimgrep, :mkview, macros and a hoard of other very useful
commands, which may be available in KDevelop, and out of the box, but
most of them require mouse and GUI widget interactions. So I tend to be
faster on the keyboard, and with the advanced VIM feature set.
But I am seduced by the simplicity of the GUI environment, that my
colleagues use. Mostly because all they need to do is right click on a
word in a source code file, and get an instant pop-up of features that
took me a long time to learn, setup and fine tune in VIM. Besides, they
get doxygen HTML view of their source comments by just a few mouse
clicks. And Test Cases, and class view, and function lists, and lots
more ...
I have heard/read about KVim inside of KDevelop, as the default text
editor, and someday soon, I am going to switch over to that. (Or
atleast give it a shot)
Alok
> I'd love to hear comments from someone who is an experienced
> Jbuilder (or some java ide) user and also an experienced emacs user.
> What are the cool features of other IDEs which are missing from emacs.
I use Eclipse (for Java) and Emacs (for everything else, esp. Lisp) all
the time -- usually daily. Eclipse is great for Java; Emacs is great
for Lisp. I never miss Eclipse-like tools when I'm working with Lisp.
However, going the other direction, I wish that Eclipse had emacs'
keyboard commands and esp. keyboard macros, which I use quite a lot in
Emacs. (Given keyboard macros I almost never have to actually resort to
programming Emacs; usually if something's that complex, I just do it in
real Lisp.)
········@gmail.com wrote:
> I use Eclipse (for Java) and Emacs (for everything else, esp. Lisp) all
> the time -- usually daily. Eclipse is great for Java; Emacs is great
> for Lisp. I never miss Eclipse-like tools when I'm working with Lisp.
> However, going the other direction, I wish that Eclipse had emacs'
> keyboard commands and esp. keyboard macros, which I use quite a lot in
> Emacs. (Given keyboard macros I almost never have to actually resort to
> programming Emacs; usually if something's that complex, I just do it in
> real Lisp.)
Eclipse contains a set of key bindings similar to Emacs, but no
keyboard macro
support. See
http://help.eclipse.org/help30/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.platform.doc.user/concepts/accessibility/keyboardshortcuts.htm
"Jimka" <·····@rdrop.com> writes:
> I think i've used vi about 3 times in my life, and i normally use ex or
> sed to edit my .emacs file when emacs won't start.
emacs -q -nw ~/.emacs
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Grace personified,
I leap into the window.
I meant to do that.
Jimka ha escrito:
> What puzzles me is that if people program in java they want to use
> an IDE such as Jbuilder or somthing fancy, and do not want
> to use a simple editor like vim or nedit, but when they edit lisp
> they want to use the stupidest editor they can find.
>
> I'd love to hear comments from someone who is an experienced
> Jbuilder (or some java ide) user and also an experienced emacs user.
> What are the cool features of other IDEs which are missing from emacs.
>
> -jim
Python programmer here, I've used Eclipse.. For me the real need for a
Java IDE is because Java isn't nice. Lots of boilerplate code (getters,
setters, etc..), one file per class, no interpreter, huge library,
everything must be in a class...
In Python (as in Lisp), most people just rather write without any fancy
IDE. Maybe it's because it's easier to hold all the language and
libraries in your head. The interpreter is a big difference, too.
Trying your code without having to type a lot of extra stuff, step by
step...
Ismael
Nicolay Giraldo wrote:
> Lisp is so productive that lisp companies survive with price policies
> that would have driven them off bussiness selling any other language or
> programming tool.
>
> In other words, some people still pay $1500+ for lisp even if other
> languages IDEs have a price of $300 for the most expensive setup.
>
> So they don't have an incentive to be more competitive.
My jury is out on Lisp or Scheme being so wonderfully productive. I
haven't really even gotten up to bat yet. To the extent that
productivity is determined by tools and support rather than the
language itself, I have serious doubts.
I'm definitely convinced that Open Source is not particularly
productive at the individual level, i.e. me spending 9 months to hammer
a CMake build into shape for Chicken Scheme. You gain productivity in
Open Source by going with really big projects like Eclipse or Apache or
some such, where everyone else has already done the vast majority of
the grunt maintenance work. If you take those burdens on yourself, in
due time you may craft a perfect jewel, but it will cost you tremendous
amounts of time. Unfortunately on Windows, open source offerings are
impoverished, so you definitely will take on support burdens if you
pursue the avant garde.
Another liability of Open Source is it's easy to acquire skills that
people don't want to pay you for.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every