I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
* ^[[A
and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
* ^P
Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
you like.
Cheers,
Erik
From: Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Subject: Re: Why does the SBCL REPL suck so bad?
Date:
Message-ID: <46B4F5DE.8090207@gmail.com>
Hi Erik,
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs.
I'm also emacs newbie, and it's not easy (block marking copying needed
some exercises before I've started using it). That to be said, I'm
finding that Lispworks IDE + Edi Weitz Startup Pack made my life easier,
so much easier, that now I'm using better EMACS + SLIME + OpenMCL/SBCL
any other lisp you name it.
So I guess it's just something you would have to learn. It makes really
much more sense, once you got used to it - compilation of the file, last
or current expression, identiting is not that easy in the other
non-emacs editors when comes to lisp code.
Dimiter "malkia" Stanev.
On 2007-08-04, Erik R. <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right?
Yes, it's called linedit.
* (require :asdf-install)
* (asdf-install:install :linedit) ;first-time installation only
* (require :linedit) ;if already installed
* (linedit:install-repl)
On Aug 4, 8:49 pm, David Lichteblau <···········@lichteblau.com>
wrote:
> On 2007-08-04, Erik R. <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right?
>
> Yes, it's called linedit.
>
> * (require :asdf-install)
> * (asdf-install:install :linedit) ;first-time installation only
> * (require :linedit) ;if already installed
> * (linedit:install-repl)
Excellent! That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
Short answer: probably because nobody ever uses it.
One way to solve it would be to create a wrapper that would sanitize
it, like irb (was that the name?) for Ruby.
A possible workaround that you can enjoy today is use rlwrap, that
wraps a program adding the niceness of readline, just run "rlwrap
sbcl" and enjoy (you many need to install rlwrap).
The problem with CUSP, why in-package doesn't work, is that it doesn't
use your system SBCL and by that it doesn't have access to your system
libraries. They are prioritizing the newcomer to Lisp <rant>rather
than the working Lisp programmer</rant>. For more info see:
http://groups.google.com/group/cusp-development/browse_thread/thread/a19da4d2ef176ff0
Erik R. wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> * ^[[A
>
> and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> * ^P
>
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> you like.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
Erik R. wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
Where do I send the check? I can do Direct Deposit if you like.
Get ACL or LW, SBCL is "free" as in PWUAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
OTOH, it did just reach Release 1.0 recently, we had a big party,
everyone was very....PWUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!
kenny
In article <························@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> * ^[[A
>
> and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> * ^P
>
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> you like.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
anti-emacs, he? In your next life you will be a frog.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
From: Cesar Rabak
Subject: Re: Why does the SBCL REPL suck so bad?
Date:
Message-ID: <f92luq$148$2@aioe.org>
Rainer Joswig escreveu:
[snipped]
>
> anti-emacs, he? In your next life you will be a frog.
>
Ah... this is the 21st century punishment for it! :-)
Rainer Joswig said:
> anti-emacs, he? In your next life you will be a frog.
There is no next life. This life is all we're ever going to get.
Karma is a stupid myth.
I suspect you've been spending too much time on the phone with customer support.
(Anybody who doesn't get the joke, here's a clue: Outsourcing.)
On Aug 4, 8:36 pm, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article <························@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> > upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> > newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> > Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> > pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> > doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> > loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> > But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> > How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> > arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> > * ^[[A
>
> > and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> > * ^P
>
> > Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> > I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> > SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> > and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> > Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> > you like.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Erik
>
> anti-emacs, he? In your next life you will be a frog.
Anything but a frog, brings back a lot of bad karma. How about
mosquito ?
On Aug 4, 7:36 pm, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
>
> anti-emacs, he? In your next life you will be a frog.
He's a frog in *this* life, that's probably why he doesn't like Emacs,
frogs being notorious vi/ed bigots.
--tim
(just to clear up the common confusion: yes, frogs are the ones which
use only vi & ed, it's toads which use emacs. You can tell them apart
because toads have warts and many of them exude hallucinogens, in
common with many other emacs-using species)
On Aug 4, 7:25 pm, "Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs.
You could try ABLE. It's not yet perfect (and if you're on Windows
then it's even less perfect). But its REPL interface has a readline
like command history (as well as syntax highlighting, code completion,
auto indentation, etc). You can download it from my website.
--
'(phil "http://phil.nullable.eu/")
(message (Hello 'Erik)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:25:47 -0700))
(
ER> I must state
ER> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
ER> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...
this is very strange to me -- I was Windows developers using IDEs like MSVC
and Borland ones, but I had no problems migrating to XEmacs.
maybe you just need to customize Emacs to make it usable? change
keybindings? change look? pick other version -- XEmacs or Aquamacs?
it appears XEmacs by default has keybindings similar to Windoze editors
ones, i suspect they are similar to Java-based editors.
ER> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right?
nope. it's handled by readline in CLISP.
you can install readline for SBCL: http://www.cliki.net/Linedit
ER> Am I an idiot for running the SBCL REPL directly?
raw SBCL is barely usable.
CLISP REPL is usable only for small stuff. why don't you use CLISP?
"IDE" like Emacs is required for efficient development/learning.
ER> Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs and slime?
you can get other IDEs for different implementations -- Hemlock for cmucl.
Lispworks and AllegroCL commercial implementations have their IDEs, you can
get their trial editions for learning.
ABCL works with J editor.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"choose no life")
Erik R. said:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program.
Before you attempt to write a *****program****, why not just
practice the language by writing functions which you call
individually whenever you need their functionality (unavoidable pun)?
Think of the REPL as your shell, and each function as a shell command.
Build up a large set of such utilities that are useful to you for a
variety of tasks. Don't bother to organize them into a larger
structure commonly called a "program". But do make every function
name extremely expressive of the task that function does, so that
it will be easy to 'grep' your source files to remind yourself of
some function you wrote months ago that you need again for the
first time in that long.
Don't bother with "object oriented" programming when you're just starting.
Use "modular programming" (lots of reusable components at all
levels) with procedural coding style. Pass (function (lambda (args...) body...))
as parameters to mapping functions such as mapcar whenever it's useful.
Take full advantage of lexical references in such anonymous functions.
For example:
(defun dup-car-map-cdrs (onecar allcdrs)
(mapcar #'(lambda (onecdr) (cons onecar onecdr)) allcdrs))
; ^^^^^^ (lexical reference)
(dup-car-map-cdrs 'x '(q w e r)) --> ((X . Q) (X . W) (X . E) (X . R))
Lexical references from anonymous functions give you incredible power,
so learn to take full advantage of that capability as soon as you can.
> I can't stand emacs.
Compared to what? Compared to having a personal secretary who does all
your typing from dictation so you never have to learn to use an editor?
Compared to 'vi' on Unix? Emacs beats 'vi' by an order of magnitude.
Compared to a decent GUI editor? Well, in that case you might be right,
at least for some purposes. Still there are some tasks for which emacs
beats anything else whatsoever.
> I've just run SBCL directly
Why not copy-and-paste back and forth between your favorite text
editor and the REPL? Most of the time I like typing into a GUI
editor and pasting to the REPL a lot better than typing directly
into a REPL.
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
Yes, that's the right way to write code. Unit test everything while
it's fresh in your mind. That's one of the big winning things about
a REPL as opposed to "most other languages" where you need to write
a complete program before you can test even one line of code.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions?
Easy, in fact trivial: Scroll up your GUI editor to the point where
that expression is in your file, copy it from there, paste to your
REPL, and what is your problem?
> Am I an idiot for running the SBCL REPL directly?
I refuse to answer that question on grounds that it would tend to
make you think I'm Dr. Phil or Oscar the grouch.
No wait: Dr. Phil would say "The fact that you asked means you know the answer."
Oscar would say "Do I live in a garbage can?" and slam the lid shut.
> Flame me for being anti-emacs if you like.
I wouldn't like that.
But if you want to flame yourself, I won't stop you.
Pay no attention to the lisper behind the curtain.
On Aug 4, 8:25 pm, "Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
If you insist on using tools in a way that no one else uses them,
don't expect them to be easy to use. AFAIK, people who actually use
Lisp to get work done do not use Eclipse, so you shouldn't expect it
to be especially usable. If you run SBCL under Emacs like most of the
world, or use McClim like a few brave/foolish souls, you should have a
much more usable environment.
No one's saying you have to use Emacs for anything else, but yes, use
it for Lisp. CUA-mode (M-x cua-mode <RET>) will make it behave like a
half-way reasonable application on Linux and Windows. Use Aquamacs on
the Mac. Or use viper, if you're a vi user.
On 4 Aug, 19:25, "Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs.
You'll change your mind ;-) A month ago I felt the same way and made
do with CUSP and Clisp. But if you find you enjoy programming in lisp
you'll soon go the extra mile and learn emacs if only to see what all
the fuss is about.
Most of the shortcuts are mind bendingly unintuitive (just like the
good old qwerty layout was when you first saw it) but it's amazing
what the human mind can master with enough practice.
Erik R. <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am I an idiot for running the SBCL REPL directly?
No but you're making an idiot out of yourself by whining on Usenet that
some software you didn't even pay for is missing some particular feature
you deem useful and then going down the "it sucks!" trail.
(message (Hello 'Matthias)
(you :wrote :on '(5 Aug 2007 17:33:38 GMT))
(
??>> Am I an idiot for running the SBCL REPL directly?
MB> No but you're making an idiot out of yourself by whining on Usenet that
MB> some software you didn't even pay for is missing some particular
MB> feature you deem useful and then going down the "it sucks!" trail.
but it really sucks! most other free lisps (CLISP, ECL, GCL, ABCL) have sane
REPL!
i'm using SBCL only for testing some constructs compatibility, so it's not
feasibly to run it in fancy way in Emacs or install fancy readline package.
i admit that SBCL developers might have there reasons not to include
readline-style REPL -- licensing issues, "why bother" argument or whatever,
but it really sucks from _user_ perspective.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"choose no life")
Alex Mizrahi <········@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> i'm using SBCL only for testing some constructs compatibility, so it's not
> feasibly to run it in fancy way in Emacs or install fancy readline package.
I don't understand this sentence... if you run it inside emacs, then
emacs does the input editing, n'est-ce pas? For being not feasible, iirc
(I don't use emacs that often), you only have to use C-u M-x run-lisp
and it'll ask you for which program to run instead of
inferior-lisp-program. Not too much of an effort, I'd think.
Besides, the OP's spoiled whining only betrays ignorance about the tools
ready at hand, and laziness about inquiring about the reasons behind it
or find a solution on one's own. Better to scream "it sucks bad!" on
Usenet instead of getting some information yourself... typical of
today's spoiled youth if you ask me...</feigning-old-codger>
> i admit that SBCL developers might have there reasons not to include
> readline-style REPL -- licensing issues, "why bother" argument or whatever,
> but it really sucks from _user_ perspective.
Better than linking against readline and then finding out that you have
to switch over the whole thing to the GPL, and you actually do so
(instead of just replacing the readline part), as clisp has done. Now
that's something that really sucks.
Just an old codger (aspirant) who runs sbcl in xterm, and has no
problems with that.
(message (Hello 'Matthias)
(you :wrote :on '(5 Aug 2007 20:05:56 GMT))
(
MB> I don't understand this sentence... if you run it inside emacs, then
MB> emacs does the input editing, n'est-ce pas? For being not feasible,
MB> iirc (I don't use emacs that often), you only have to use C-u M-x
MB> run-lisp and it'll ask you for which program to run instead of
MB> inferior-lisp-program. Not too much of an effort, I'd think.
i have SBCL on remote machine, accessing it via SSH. certainly it's possible
to connect to remote Lisp via SSH in Emacs, but it will take about 5 minutes
of learning/configuring -- so it's not feasible considering most of my
sessions last less than 1 minute.
also, it's not that of disaster having dumb REPL -- indeed, i can
copy-paste, and i'm actually typing not bad. but my brain reflexes just get
used to nice REPLs like in Emacs and other implementations, so it's just a
bit of pain for me, nothing more.. it doesn't stop me from what i'm doing :)
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"choose no life")
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> (message (Hello 'Matthias)
> (you :wrote :on '(5 Aug 2007 20:05:56 GMT))
> (
>
> MB> I don't understand this sentence... if you run it inside emacs, then
> MB> emacs does the input editing, n'est-ce pas? For being not feasible,
> MB> iirc (I don't use emacs that often), you only have to use C-u M-x
> MB> run-lisp and it'll ask you for which program to run instead of
> MB> inferior-lisp-program. Not too much of an effort, I'd think.
>
> i have SBCL on remote machine, accessing it via SSH. certainly it's possible
> to connect to remote Lisp via SSH in Emacs, but it will take about 5 minutes
> of learning/configuring -- so it's not feasible considering most of my
> sessions last less than 1 minute.
C-u M-x inferior-lisp RET C-a C-k ssh remote sbcl RET
I think you are just sub-estimating emacs...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
On 6 Aug, 13:26, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> C-u M-x inferior-lisp RET C-a C-k ssh remote sbcl RET
>
> I think you are just sub-estimating emacs...
I'm not exactly into throwing around flamebait, but all this chording
is
bad for health as it is powerful.
Leslie
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
> i have SBCL on remote machine, accessing it via SSH. certainly it's
> possible to connect to remote Lisp via SSH in Emacs, but it will take
> about 5 minutes of learning/configuring -- so it's not feasible
> considering most of my sessions last less than 1 minute.
C-u M-x slime
This will prompt for the Lisp command to run (e.g. sbcl --noinform
instead of your usual Lisp).
> also, it's not that of disaster having dumb REPL -- indeed, i can
> copy-paste, and i'm actually typing not bad. but my brain reflexes
> just get used to nice REPLs like in Emacs and other implementations,
> so it's just a bit of pain for me, nothing more.. it doesn't stop me
> from what i'm doing :)
I too wish that SBCL had a nicer REPL; OTOH it is already a bit of a
memory hog, and adding yet another library to its footprint is probably
not a great idea.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
A horse will usually shy from a plastic bin-liner in a hedge.
I don't know why; maybe tigers used to go around dressed in
bin-liners or something once. --Dan Holdsworth
> Besides, the OP's spoiled whining only betrays ignorance about the tools
> ready at hand, and laziness about inquiring about the reasons behind it
> or find a solution on one's own. Better to scream "it sucks bad!" on
> Usenet instead of getting some information yourself... typical of
> today's spoiled youth if you ask me...</feigning-old-codger>
I think it has less to do with the OP being "spoiled" than simply
wanting, in the big picture, a post-Renaissance development
environment, one that doesn't require months and years of study to use
well. Those crazy kids, used to booting up Eclipse and being able to
figure it out the same day. And don't even get me started on
Textmate.
The pungent attitude infusing your post is a pretty endemic one in
this community, I think, where's there's some unstated machismo in
using shitty tools from a hundred years ago. Yeah, emacs is powerful,
you can have it do your taxes, you can make it give you a handjob, and
after years of study a guy can be pretty damn facile with it. Of
course, what it is is not so much an editor as an operating system,
and some people - spoiled, if you want, or perhaps not suffering from
as much brain damage as yourself - have got a taste of something that
doesn't make a painful charade out managing all the files in a
directory. Oh wait, there's dired mode. Yeah, my bad.
> Just an old codger (aspirant) who runs sbcl in xterm, and has no
> problems with that.
Know what, codger, you might want to really turn shit up and start
booting MSDOS and using debug to hack raw machine language from the
command prompt. Hard. Core.
I suppose at this point it's a waste of time saying that I use emacs
and Lisp all day every day, and am even reasonably proficient in both
at this point. But pretending that Jesus whispered the original code
to Stallman in a dream, and that programming paradigms got perfected
in McCarthy's day - well, what can I say. That's why Lisp is
marginalized, I guess: too many purists and zealots, not enough
spoiled whiners.
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> but it really sucks! most other free lisps (CLISP, ECL, GCL, ABCL) have sane
> REPL!
Perhaps because they target less advanced users? :-)
Or perhaps sbcl is more in the unix spirit, and let you pipe the right
tool to do line editing and history: rlwrap or compatible packages.
> i admit that SBCL developers might have there reasons not to include
> readline-style REPL -- licensing issues, "why bother" argument or whatever,
> but it really sucks from _user_ perspective.
1- the standard doesn't specify much for the REPL.
See: http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/Body/sec_25-1-1.html
2- any beginner should be able to write his own REPL, this is a
good exercise and it lets you learn a lot.
Unfortunately, the details of user interaction for a nice REPL will be
somewhat implementation dependent. For example, in a terminal, how to
deal with raw keys is not specified by Common Lisp. LISTEN and
READ-CHAR may help, but there's no standard way to set "non-buffering"
on *QUERY-IO* or *STANDARD-INPUT*.
But the point is who said that the REPL should work with a terminal?
Nowadays, it would rather work from a GUI window, or from Firefox...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Un chat errant
se soulage
dans le jardin d'hiver
Shiki
Alex Mizrahi <········@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
+---------------
| i admit that SBCL developers might have there reasons not to include
| readline-style REPL -- licensing issues, "why bother" argument or whatever,
| but it really sucks from _user_ perspective.
+---------------
CMUCL has the same type of "basic" REPL as SBCL, and I've never had
a problem getting large amounts of code written/tested with it...
and I don't even use Emacs!! ;-}
As others have advised you, do your input editing in an *editor*
[which one really doesn't matter], and then "send" (with Emacs/Slime)
or "copy/paste" (with "vi", say) the forms into your REPL. It's *easy*!
-Rob
p.s. GNU "readline()" is *not* a panacea for Lisp REPL input!!
See <http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Ambitious.html> for just
a few reasons why it probably can't ever be.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Aug 5, 10:40 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Matthias)
> (you :wrote :on '(5 Aug 2007 17:33:38 GMT))
> (
>
> ??>> Am I an idiot for running the SBCL REPL directly?
>
> MB> No but you're making an idiot out of yourself by whining on Usenet that
> MB> some software you didn't even pay for is missing some particular
> MB> feature you deem useful and then going down the "it sucks!" trail.
>
> but it really sucks! most other free lisps (CLISP, ECL, GCL, ABCL) have sane
> REPL!
> i'm using SBCL only for testing some constructs compatibility, so it's not
> feasibly to run it in fancy way in Emacs or install fancy readline package.
>
> i admit that SBCL developers might have there reasons not to include
> readline-style REPL -- licensing issues, "why bother" argument or whatever,
> but it really sucks from _user_ perspective.
>
> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "choose no life")
Installing linedit is too "fancy" for you? I am speechless. What the
hell are you playing with lisp for? It is not for those that expect
to be spoon fed and coddled at every step. Not much of any worth is.
- samantha
(message (Hello 'samantha)
(you :wrote :on '(Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:15:43 -0000))
(
s> Installing linedit is too "fancy" for you? I am speechless.
just my cost/benefit analysis says installing lineedit is not worth of
effort.
s> What the hell are you playing with lisp for? It is not for those that
s> expect to be spoon fed and coddled at every step. Not much of any worth
s> is.
you should read more attentively before insulting person next time.
i just don't use SBCL for development. i use ABCL, in SLIME.
i'm using SBCL only for testing some stuff for compatibility etc, so
sessions typically last for a minute or so -- thus, it's not feasible to
make fancy configuration.
in past i was programming in CMUCL -- and with Emacs it was quite OK (afair
there was no SLIME that time).
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"choose no life")
"Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> (message (Hello 'samantha)
> (you :wrote :on '(Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:15:43 -0000))
> (
>
> s> Installing linedit is too "fancy" for you? I am speechless.
>
> just my cost/benefit analysis says installing lineedit is not worth of
> effort.
>
> s> What the hell are you playing with lisp for? It is not for those that
> s> expect to be spoon fed and coddled at every step. Not much of any worth
> s> is.
>
> you should read more attentively before insulting person next time.
> i just don't use SBCL for development. i use ABCL, in SLIME.
> i'm using SBCL only for testing some stuff for compatibility etc, so
> sessions typically last for a minute or so -- thus, it's not feasible to
> make fancy configuration.
>
> in past i was programming in CMUCL -- and with Emacs it was quite OK (afair
> there was no SLIME that time).
Then you could use sbcl in emacs with inferior-lisp.
C-u M-x inferior-lisp RET C-a C-k sbcl RET
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
There is another Eclipse Plugin:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dandelion-ecl
You can use it with CLISP (Win, Mac, Linux) and SBCL (Mac, Linux)
Erik R. wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> * ^[[A
>
> and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> * ^P
>
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> you like.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
>
On Aug 4, 8:25 pm, "Erik R." <·············@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> * ^[[A
>
> and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> * ^P
>
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> you like.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
If you can't stand Emacs (actually I'm not it's fan neither) why don't
you try learning the language with one of the free editions from Franz
(Allegro Express) or Lispworks Personal to concentrate on the language
or give a lispbox a try http://www.gigamonkeys.com/lispbox/ it's
based on emacs but you could use only very small part of it . Later
after you feel comfortable with lisp you could choose your way.
you can use *rlwrap* utility with readline library. basicly rlwrap
will (as the name suggests) wrap sbcl program when you run it provide
you with ''what you asked for''. then in your shell rc file you can do
something like
alias sbcl='rlwrap sbcl' ... and forget about the rlwrap thunking
cmo-0
Erik R. wrote:
> I'm new to lisp and just starting my first program. I must state
> upfront that I can't stand emacs. That might be blasphemous in this
> newsgroup, but I'm sorry...I just don't like it at all. I've got
> Eclipse and CUSP (attaching to SBCL) set up and it seems to be a
> pretty good lisp IDE so far. The only problem is that in-package
> doesn't work in the CUSP REPL, so I've just run SBCL directly and have
> loaded my project and am testing my functions as I write them.
>
> But what's killing me is the extreme unusability of the SBCL REPL.
> How can I re-run previously evaluated expressions? If I hit the up
> arrow, which works in CLISP, I get:
>
> * ^[[A
>
> and if I hit Ctrl-P (yes, I know that's from emacs/slime), I get:
>
> * ^P
>
> Surely there's a way to browse through my command history, right? Do
> I need to change my terminal settings? Am I an idiot for running the
> SBCL REPL directly? Is there a better way that doesn't involve emacs
> and slime? Do any other CUSP users have my same in-package problem?
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide. Flame me for being anti-emacs if
> you like.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
cmo <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| you can use *rlwrap* utility with readline library. basicly rlwrap
| will (as the name suggests) wrap sbcl program when you run it provide
| you with ''what you asked for''. then in your shell rc file you can do
| something like
| alias sbcl='rlwrap sbcl' ... and forget about the rlwrap thunking
+---------------
Have you actually ever *tried* "rlwrap" with a Lisp REPL,
especially with multiline s-exprs?!? I have, and it, uh...
[how to put this as politely as possible?]... sort of sucks. IMHO.
Plus, it captures SIGQUIT, which CMUCL and maybe SBCL(?) map
to a call to ABORT, and losing that *really* sucks!!
-Rob
p.s. To repeat myself [bad taste, I know], GNU "readline()" is *not* a
panacea for REPL input!! <http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/Ambitious.html>
explains a few reasons why it probably can't ever be.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607