On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs.
Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
environment.
> In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it.
Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
the first place or learn anything new in general.
It's not rocket science this stuff you know. You open files, type code,
evaluate code, split a window so you can do or view many things at the
same time, try code and stuff out in the REPL .. etc.
> Are there any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?
You mean besides Emacs? Not that I know of.
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > references to Emacs.
>
> Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> environment.
>
> > In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > lisp from it.
>
> Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> the first place or learn anything new in general.
Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.
>
> It's not rocket science this stuff you know. You open files, type code,
> evaluate code, split a window so you can do or view many things at the
> same time, try code and stuff out in the REPL .. etc.
>
> > Are there any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> > from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?
>
> You mean besides Emacs? Not that I know of.
>
> --
> Lars Rune Nøstdalhttp://nostdal.org/
On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 23:41 -0700, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > > references to Emacs.
> >
> > Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> > environment.
> >
> > > In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > > lisp from it.
> >
> > Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> > simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> > the first place or learn anything new in general.
> Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.
Yeah, so? I do think he's able to learn Emacs. He's not dumb, either.
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
htpp://nostdal.org/
On Jul 7, 8:48 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 23:41 -0700, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > > > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > > > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > > > references to Emacs.
>
> > > Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> > > environment.
>
> > > > In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > > > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > > > lisp from it.
>
> > > Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> > > simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> > > the first place or learn anything new in general.
> > Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.
>
> Yeah, so? I do think he's able to learn Emacs. He's not dumb, either.
What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
there is only one way to do it.
>
> --
> Lars Rune Nøstdal
> htpp://nostdal.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 06:17 -0700, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:48 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 23:41 -0700, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > > > > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > > > > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > > > > references to Emacs.
> >
> > > > Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> > > > environment.
> >
> > > > > In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > > > > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > > > > lisp from it.
> >
> > > > Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> > > > simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> > > > the first place or learn anything new in general.
> > > Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.
> >
> > Yeah, so? I do think he's able to learn Emacs. He's not dumb, either.
>
> What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
> different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
> And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
> there is only one way to do it.
Ok, blah .. I don't understand what you're saying.
Do you have an opinion about this or not? What are you disagreeing with
here?
See, I think he's able to learn VI(M) also (in this case he already
knows it). This was the point.
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
> What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
> different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
> And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
> there is only one way to do it.
i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
an argument.
yes, i know that learning new keybindings can be hard, but
in emacs it's quite easy to reassign keybindings, or you can
get a package with pre-configured keybindings, like XEmacs
or Aquamacs.
if you can't spend 10 minutes configuring a text editor,
how will you cope with activity like programming at all?
as for democracy, i think Graham knows both Emacs and vi,
so he can choose what's better for him.
but if you don't know emacs, how do you know that something
will be better or worse? if people say Emacs is better,
they are probably have reason to do so.
newcomers are not in position to do choices until they'll
really know the matter (and thus stop being newcomers).
-- i'd like to learn lisp. but i don't like your
lisp editor, i want to use Java editor (Eclipse).
asdf seems weird to me, can't i use make or ant?
then it can end up:
-- i found that lisp syntax sucks, while language is ok.
here is what i propose: {here goes proposal to use
indentation like in Python or C-like syntax instead those
silly parentheses}
or it can end up like this:
-- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
with Java.
so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
of majority. only when you're sure you've got it
you can dive into experimentations. otherwise it's
easy to spoil learning.
On 7 Jul, 15:56, "Alex Mizrahi" <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
> an argument.
Although I'm obviously not an emacs user, I do agree with most of what
you say here. However I am curious about this:
> -- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
> programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
> none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
> with Java.
Which Common Lisp editor forces this on you? That would definitely be
a bad thing...
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
>> � -- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
>> programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
>> none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
>> with Java.
> Which Common Lisp editor forces this on you? That would definitely be
> a bad thing...
some people might want to stay with their favourite text editor
which has no support for lisp.
if i remember correctly, when i was first doing something with lisp,
there was no SLIME, i did not understood how to use Emacs ILISP
on a remote machine, so i opened REPL via ssh and was copying
functions from my editor (i was using some lisp-unaware editor
that time) into REPL.
perhaps that is even more painful than recompilation..
as i remember i did not have nice start up script, so to start
the session i had to type bunch of commands into REPL.
On Jul 7, 4:56 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
> > different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
> > And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
> > there is only one way to do it.
>
> i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
> an argument.
I think he says that he don't WANT to learn emacs, there's a
difference. Pointing to a good tool is one thing(LW,ACL,ABLE,CUSP...),
saying that some tool (Emacs) is prerequisite for lisping is
completely another. Honestly I don't give a damn if he's using a
notepad, though it would be silly, or buy Lisp Machine and use a
zmacs. As long as it's fine for him I have nothing to say. People
already gave him the alternatives so he have to choose for himself.
> yes, i know that learning new keybindings can be hard, but
> in emacs it's quite easy to reassign keybindings, or you can
> get a package with pre-configured keybindings, like XEmacs
> or Aquamacs.
> if you can't spend 10 minutes configuring a text editor,
> how will you cope with activity like programming at all?
>
> as for democracy, i think Graham knows both Emacs and vi,
> so he can choose what's better for him.
>
> but if you don't know emacs, how do you know that something
> will be better or worse? if people say Emacs is better,
> they are probably have reason to do so.
>
> newcomers are not in position to do choices until they'll
> really know the matter (and thus stop being newcomers).
>
> -- i'd like to learn lisp. but i don't like your
> lisp editor, i want to use Java editor (Eclipse).
> asdf seems weird to me, can't i use make or ant?
>
> then it can end up:
> -- i found that lisp syntax sucks, while language is ok.
> here is what i propose: {here goes proposal to use
> indentation like in Python or C-like syntax instead those
> silly parentheses}
>
> or it can end up like this:
> -- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
> programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
> none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
> with Java.
You're overreacting.
>
> so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
> of majority.
And learn Java like everybody else
>> so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
>> of majority.
> And learn Java like everybody else
no, i mean if you're learning lisp do it like lispers do.
if you are learning java, do so in a way typical to java programmers.
for example, even if you like Emacs most of all, it makes sense to
check Java IDE like IntelliJ IDEA, which has automatic refactoring
and stuff -- your Java programming won't be effective without it.