Paul graham says here;
http://www.paulgraham.com/pfaq.html
that he uses vi.
I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake?
Is vi simpler and faster and less work?
Or is emacs they wya to go?
--beginning lisper
On 19 Feb, 08:35, "gavino" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul graham says here;http://www.paulgraham.com/pfaq.html
> that he uses vi.
>
> I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake?
>
> Is vi simpler and faster and less work?
>
> Or is emacs they wya to go?
>
> --beginning lisper
If you are genuinely interested in learning Common Lisp then there are
many other options than emacs and vi, although emacs with slime is of
course the most popular and probably the most powerful if you can fit
it all in your brain (I can't!).
If you can excuse the self promotion then I recently announced my own
little project ABLE (http://phil.nullable.eu/) which might be useful
to a new Lisp programmer although it's in fairly early stages so might
annoy you too much. CUSP (http://www.paragent.com/lisp/cusp/cusp.htm)
looks pretty great if you like using Eclipse and I believe Allegro,
LispWorks and CormanLisp all come with highly regarded editors which
you might enjoy using more than Emacs.
There's certainly lots of choice out there.
Phil
I think I will stick with slime until I know enough to drop it.
I am going to plow through gentle intro by Touretsky then attempt on
lisp by Graham.
SICP is supposed to be good but is aimed at scheme.....
gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I will stick with slime until I know enough to drop it.
> I am going to plow through gentle intro by Touretsky then attempt on
> lisp by Graham.
> SICP is supposed to be good but is aimed at scheme.....
At least watch the SICP videos.
"gavino" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake? Is vi
> simpler and faster and less work? Or is emacs they wya to go?
The good thing about (X)Emacs is that if you ever happen to
(mistakenly) change your mind, you just have to 'M-x viper-mode' and you can
then use vi.
--
The @-quartet now available on iTunes ! http://www.didierverna.com/records/
Didier Verna EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22
Didier Verna <······@xemacs.org> wrote:
> The good thing about (X)Emacs is that if you ever happen to
> (mistakenly) change your mind, you just have to 'M-x viper-mode' and you can
> then use vi.
And the bad thing about Emacs users is that they always mention
viper-mode to a vi user.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:37:52 +0100, Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> said:
| And the bad thing about Emacs users is that they always mention
| viper-mode to a vi user.
... instead of the classical incantation C-x C-c vi RET.
---Vassil.
--
Our programs do not have bugs; it is just that the users' expectations
differ from the way they are implemented.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0100, Stefan Scholl wrote:
> Didier Verna <······@xemacs.org> wrote:
>> The good thing about (X)Emacs is that if you ever happen to
>> (mistakenly) change your mind, you just have to 'M-x viper-mode' and you can
>> then use vi.
>
> And the bad thing about Emacs users is that they always mention
> viper-mode to a vi user.
I used vi, then I used emacs, now I'm back to vi. Viper-mode is quite a
nice vi implementation (better than nvi in some respects, not as good as
vim), and emacs does have a lot going for it once you get past the
inefficient key bindings (npbf is about as good as hjkl, it's the rest...)
The point that vi vs emacs discussions always miss, IMO, is that of the
environment. A vi user's programming environment is Unix, an emacs user's
environment is emacs. Emacs is probably better at editing and
interacting with lisp than vi (but vim's lisp support is really good).
It's just not as good at most of the other things that you do while
programming, IMO. That perspective probably changes as you learn more
elisp. I never did...
Cheers,
--
Andrew
Andrew Reilly <···············@areilly.bpc-users.org> writes:
> The point that vi vs emacs discussions always miss, IMO, is that of the
> environment. A vi user's programming environment is Unix, an emacs user's
> environment is emacs.
This is a good point, but also, I find as easy to access the unix
environment from emacs than from vi, if not easier.
For example, is there in (recent) vi a way to do:
M-x setenv RET SOME_ENV_VAR RET some_value RET
M-! some-unix-command RET
M-! some-other-unix-command RET
AFAIK, in vi, you'd have to do:
ESC :! SOME_ENV_VAR=some_value some-unix-command RET
ESC :! SOME_ENV_VAR=some_value some-other-unix-command RET
emacs subsumes all the environments and is the ultimate Integrating DE.
> Emacs is probably better at editing and interacting with lisp than
> vi (but vim's lisp support is really good). It's just not as good
> at most of the other things that you do while programming, IMO.
> That perspective probably changes as you learn more elisp. I never
> did...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This is a signature virus. Add me to your signature and help me to live.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:01:55 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> This is a good point, but also, I find as easy to access the unix
> environment from emacs than from vi, if not easier.
>
> For example, is there in (recent) vi a way to do:
Oh, I doubt it, but there could be. My point was that a vi user doesn't
even attempt to access the unix environment from within vi, unless they
want to suck some command output into a buffer: they just use a shell
session in another window. Vi is for editing. Shells are for running
scripts and commands. I'm in the group that doesn't like to mix those two.
On the other hand, I think that the PLT scheme (DrScheme) debugging
environment is amazing. The way it shows the call stack by stringing the
call site source together on a red line is really neat. That's a trick
that only IDEs can do. Maybe I'll find myself switching over again one
day.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
:-) Okay, guys, I should be more cautious about declaring in which
package I am at the beginning of each file...
(in-package :troll-feeder)
> The good thing about (X)Emacs is that if you ever happen to
> (mistakenly) change your mind, you just have to 'M-x viper-mode' and you can
> then use vi.
--
The @-quartet now available on iTunes ! http://www.didierverna.com/records/
Didier Verna EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22
Ignore Larz, I am not a Troll. I am a linux admin attempting to
evolve into more than someone who tweaks the os into someone who can
make the computer answer questions.
>>>>> "dvl" == Didier Verna <······@xemacs.org> writes:
dvl> The good thing about (X)Emacs is that if you ever happen
dvl> to (mistakenly) change your mind, you just have to 'M-x
dvl> viper-mode' and you can then use vi.
Mwahaha, effectivement un tag [TROLL] aurait été le bienvenu :)
(message (Hello 'gavino)
(you :wrote :on '(19 Feb 2007 00:35:00 -0800))
(
g> http://www.paulgraham.com/pfaq.html
g> that he uses vi.
g> I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake?
g> Is vi simpler and faster and less work?
vi is more complex.
while [X]Emacs works similar to usual editors (for example, like MS Visual
Studio), vi is very different.
g> Or is emacs they wya to go?
emacs is much better for most people
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"?? ???? ??????? ?????")
Help out:
http://groups.google.com/groups/abuse?group=comp.lang.lisp&type=message&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fmsg%2F195a43f235a32211&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F4a34d9387a86d168%2F195a43f235a32211%3F
http://groups.google.com/groups/abuse?group=comp.lang.lisp&type=message&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fmsg%2F925cdb2374784e7a&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7c59dbdb9afce9ef%2F925cdb2374784e7a%3F
http://groups.google.com/groups/abuse?group=comp.lang.lisp&type=message&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fmsg%2Fe3ccb06ed179f2b0&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.lisp%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe61fc166d66d5c6b%2Fe3ccb06ed179f2b0%3F
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
On Feb 19, 2:35 am, "gavino" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul graham says here;http://www.paulgraham.com/pfaq.html
> that he uses vi.
>
> I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake?
>
> Is vi simpler and faster and less work?
>
> Or is emacs they wya to go?
>
> --beginning lisper
I tried it a long time ago. It is simpler, faster, and much more
painful when your project starts to grow a little bit. The slime
community is great, and there are a lot of docs out there to help you
out.
Before I started using slime, vim was my primary editor. Now, I
pretty much use emacs for everything. It has a learning curve, but it
is well worth it.
On Feb 21, 8:07 am, "Chris Parker" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:35 am, "gavino" <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul graham says here;http://www.paulgraham.com/pfaq.html
> > that he uses vi.
>
> > I just set up emacs and slime and am wondering am I making a mistake?
>
> > Is vi simpler and faster and less work?
>
> > Or is emacs they wya to go?
>
> > --beginning lisper
>
> I tried it a long time ago. It is simpler, faster, and much more
> painful when your project starts to grow a little bit. The slime
> community is great, and there are a lot of docs out there to help you
> out.
>
> Before I started using slime, vim was my primary editor. Now, I
> pretty much use emacs for everything. It has a learning curve, but it
> is well worth it.
If you are interested in using Emacs with Vim-like bindings (including
Slime mappings), you may want to check out
darcs get http://common-lisp.net/project/vial/darcs/extended-viper/
It's not perfect, but scratches my itch for Vim keybindings + Slime
goodness.
Brad