i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
Anyone have any idea where i should start looking to figure out what
the problem is?
Polling "/tmp/slime.7467".. (Abort with `M-x slime-abort-connection'.)
[8 times]
Connecting to Swank on port 1024..
Process bridge is installed
error in process filter: save-current-buffer: End of file during
parsing
error in process filter: End of file during parsing
Jimka wrote:
> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
> Anyone have any idea where i should start looking to figure out what
> the problem is?
http://www.lispworks.com/
:)
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
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Jimka wrote:
>> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
>> Anyone have any idea where i should start looking to figure out what
>> the problem is?
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/
>
Kenny -- you don't think this is getting old?
--ap
Alain Picard wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Jimka wrote:
>>
>>>i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
>>>Anyone have any idea where i should start looking to figure out what
>>>the problem is?
>>
>>http://www.lispworks.com/
>>
>
>
> Kenny -- you don't think this is getting old?
Boy, have you missed the point. Or maybe not. Maybe you realize now that
every time we see someone slaving away over some "free" tool that i am
going to throw in a quite, unobtrusive reminder of my
counter-brainwashing: it ain't free.
My little one-liner was not a thousand-word rant, was offered with a
smiley, and likely would have passed quietly but for your intrusion.
Thanks!
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
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Boy, have you missed the point. Or maybe not. Maybe you realize now that
> every time we see someone slaving away over some "free" tool that i am
> going to throw in a quite, unobtrusive reminder of my
> counter-brainwashing: it ain't free.
>
> My little one-liner was not a thousand-word rant, was offered with a
> smiley, and likely would have passed quietly but for your intrusion.
Well, it is one thing to take a certain point in a discussion, but
when someone asks a simple question, pointing him to a totally
useless address in that situation, I found that strange...
And I do not claim that open source software is without
some investment. However, I fail to see any commercial
package that could replace slime for the situations where
slime shines - in others the commercial IDEs might be nice.
Peter
--
Ltk, the easy lisp gui http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Me, I find it strange trying to get by with my Lisp in a different
> process when my IDE and Lisp could be one.
>
>>
>> And I do not claim that open source software is without
>> some investment. However, I fail to see any commercial
>> package that could replace slime for the situations where
>> slime shines - in others the commercial IDEs might be nice.
>
>
> Fer sher. I have many good things about Slime from other people I respect.
>
Slime has for me the advantages that it works independent of the
Lisp you are running, be it ACL or SBCL, it works from within
Emacs and you do not have to restart your IDE just to restart
your Lisp. Last but not least, if you are running a server
written in Lisp, you can attach a slime session running
from within "screen".
Peter
--
Ltk, the easy lisp gui http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
On 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
> Jimka wrote:
>> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/
Lispworks sucks. Its IDE sucks, its GUI library sucks, its
documentation sucks, its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus
array size too), its Unicode support sucks. It doesn't worth its
price.
I used it for three months.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Life! Don't talk to me about life.
Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
> On 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Jimka wrote:
>>
>>>i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
>>
>>http://www.lispworks.com/
>
>
> Lispworks sucks.
Every time I say that some pretty decent Lispniks using Lispworks more
than you did step up to sing its praises. Are you hard to please?
> Its IDE sucks,...
Yep. But I was happy "Before ACL", so I think I'll do OK on LW. But look
for me to recreate much of what I like about ACL on LW. I already have
my own object inspector, ClouCell.
> its GUI library sucks,
So don't use it? Do you know one better/more portable? Besides my stuff,
I mean. Whatever answer you have, Lispworks will run it.
> its
> documentation sucks, ...
Wouldn't know, don't read much doc besides CLHS.
> its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus
> array size too), its Unicode support sucks.
Don't know about those.
> It doesn't worth its
> price.
Come on, it's Lisp, of course it is worth it.
:)
kt
--
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 Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
>> On 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>> > Jimka wrote:
>> >
>> > > i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in
>> > > emacs.
>> >
>> > http://www.lispworks.com/
>>
>>
>> Lispworks sucks.
>
> Every time I say that some pretty decent Lispniks using Lispworks more
> than you did step up to sing its praises. Are you hard to please?
>
>> Its IDE sucks,...
>
> Yep.
So. Jimka says "I'm having trouble getting SLIME to work." SLIME is a Lisp
IDE, and generally regarded, it seems, as a good one.
Your 'solution' to this is that Jimka should shell out a lot of money to
get a LispWorks license, since everyone knows that commercial Lisp vendors
have solved all problems anyone ever had with free implementations.
But then you admit that LispWork's IDE sucks.
So your solution to "I can't get my free IDE to work" is "don't waste your
time on a good free IDE, you should pay lots of money to use a sucky
proprietary IDE. That'll make you much more productive in the long run."
> But I was happy "Before ACL", so I think I'll do OK on LW. But look for
> me to recreate much of what I like about ACL on LW. I already have my
> own object inspector, ClouCell.
>
>> its GUI library sucks,
>
> So don't use it? Do you know one better/more portable? Besides my stuff,
> I mean. Whatever answer you have, Lispworks will run it.
>
>> its documentation sucks, ...
>
> Wouldn't know, don't read much doc besides CLHS.
>
>> its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus array size too), its
>> Unicode support sucks.
>
> Don't know about those.
Despite championing commercial Lisp vendors as being obviously far
superior to free Lisp vendors, and LispWorks in particular as being
superior to SLIME+<Any Lisp implementation which works with SLIME>, you
tacitly admit (or at least fail to deny) that LispWorks has a sucky IDE,
GUI library, documentation, optimiser, i18n/L10n support and might not
(depending upon your platform) cope with arrays containing more than
around 8 million elements.
>> It doesn't worth its price.
>
> Come on, it's Lisp, of course it is worth it.
>
> :)
>
> kt
>
>
> -- 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
>
Nathan Baum wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> > Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
> >> On 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jimka wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in
> >> > > emacs.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.lispworks.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> Lispworks sucks.
> >
> > Every time I say that some pretty decent Lispniks using Lispworks more
> > than you did step up to sing its praises. Are you hard to please?
> >
> >> Its IDE sucks,...
> >
> > Yep.
>
> So. Jimka says "I'm having trouble getting SLIME to work." SLIME is a Lisp
> IDE, and generally regarded, it seems, as a good one.
>
> Your 'solution' to this is that Jimka should shell out a lot of money to
> get a LispWorks license, since everyone knows that commercial Lisp vendors
> have solved all problems anyone ever had with free implementations.
>
> But then you admit that LispWork's IDE sucks.
>
> So your solution to "I can't get my free IDE to work" is "don't waste your
> time on a good free IDE, you should pay lots of money to use a sucky
> proprietary IDE. That'll make you much more productive in the long run."
>
> > But I was happy "Before ACL", so I think I'll do OK on LW. But look for
> > me to recreate much of what I like about ACL on LW. I already have my
> > own object inspector, ClouCell.
> >
> >> its GUI library sucks,
> >
> > So don't use it? Do you know one better/more portable? Besides my stuff,
> > I mean. Whatever answer you have, Lispworks will run it.
> >
> >> its documentation sucks, ...
> >
> > Wouldn't know, don't read much doc besides CLHS.
> >
> >> its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus array size too), its
> >> Unicode support sucks.
> >
> > Don't know about those.
>
> Despite championing commercial Lisp vendors as being obviously far
> superior to free Lisp vendors, and LispWorks in particular as being
> superior to SLIME+<Any Lisp implementation which works with SLIME>, you
> tacitly admit (or at least fail to deny) that LispWorks has a sucky IDE,
> GUI library, documentation, optimiser, i18n/L10n support and might not
> (depending upon your platform) cope with arrays containing more than
> around 8 million elements.
Most is just false and uninformed.
>
> >> It doesn't worth its price.
> >
> > Come on, it's Lisp, of course it is worth it.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > kt
> >
> >
> > -- 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 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Its IDE sucks,...
>
> Yep. ...
>> its GUI library sucks,
>
> So don't use it?
So, I do use its GUI, I do use its IDE and I cannot fix other
problems. Now I don't see why should I buy it.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Outlook has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
If the problem persists, contact the program vendor.
In article <··············@ibhome.cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru>,
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> wrote:
> On 9558 day of my life Ken Tilton wrote:
> > Jimka wrote:
> >> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
> >
> > http://www.lispworks.com/
>
> Lispworks sucks. Its IDE sucks, its GUI library sucks, its
> documentation sucks, its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus
> array size too), its Unicode support sucks. It doesn't worth its
> price.
>
> I used it for three months.
Maybe you missed it, but LispWorks 5.0 has just released
with an improved implementation. See:
http://www.lispworks.com/news/news19.html
From the Release Notes:
---
12.2 Improved architecture on x86 platforms
LispWorks for Windows and LispWorks for Linux now share the architecture
of the other 32-bit LispWorks implementations, resulting in the following
changes:
* fixnums now hold 30 bits of data. That is, most-positive-fixnum is
2^29-1.
* array-total-size-limit is now 2^28-1.
* array-rank-limit is now 4000.
* The Garbage Collector is improved and memory management issues
specific to the LispWorks 4.4/x86 architecture are removed.
This architecture is also used on Intel-based Macintosh computers.
---
Also note that you get even larger fixnums with the new
64bit versions of LispWorks. From the Release Notes:
---
12.1 Additional platforms supported
LispWorks now supports the following additional platforms:
* Intel-based Macintosh computers
* FreeBSD on x86
* 64-bit Linux on AMD64/EM64T systems
* 64-bit Windows x64 Editions
* 64-bit Mac OS X G5 systems
* 64-bit Solaris/SPARC
---
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On 9558 day of my life Rainer Joswig wrote:
>> > http://www.lispworks.com/
>>
>> Lispworks sucks. Its IDE sucks, its GUI library sucks, its
>> documentation sucks, its speed sucks, its fixnum size sucks (and thus
>> array size too), its Unicode support sucks. It doesn't worth its
>> price.
> Maybe you missed it, but LispWorks 5.0 has just released
> with an improved implementation.
I know; I describe experience I got more than a year ago. And fixnum
size is not most serious problem.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
| recursion, n:
| See recursion
i downloaded slime 2.0 and i got a similar error but it was able to
handle it better.... when i started slime it said something to the
effect of "end of file while loading history. continue y/n?"
i pressed y, and it seems to have started just fine.
perhaps at some point i rebooted or something leaving an
unterminated history file????
-jim
Jimka wrote:
> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
> Anyone have any idea where i should start looking to figure out what
> the problem is?
>
> Polling "/tmp/slime.7467".. (Abort with `M-x slime-abort-connection'.)
> [8 times]
> Connecting to Swank on port 1024..
> Process bridge is installed
> error in process filter: save-current-buffer: End of file during
> parsing
> error in process filter: End of file during parsing
On 9558 day of my life ·····@rdrop.com wrote:
> i'm trying to start slime, and i get a pretty cryptic error in emacs.
> error in process filter: save-current-buffer: End of file during
> parsing
> error in process filter: End of file during parsing
It seems lisp process crashed or something like this. Write Emacs'
version, Slime's version, your lisp implementation name and send it to
slime-devel mail list.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Is 'evening' a gerund?