On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> I'm damn sure that clueless non-technical user can't configure it to
> work, no matter what FSF pricks say
..hm..
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> So whenever I see development tool that doesn't have a windows
> version I ask myself what were you people thinking? You just excluded
> 95% of developers out there.
ok, if we combine these, we get:
* clueless
* non-technical
..and..
* developer
yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses ..
lol
On Nov 13, 5:26 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > I'm damn sure that clueless non-technical user can't configure it to
> > work, no matter what FSF pricks say
>
> ..hm..
>
> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > So whenever I see development tool that doesn't have a windows
> > version I ask myself what were you people thinking? You just excluded
> > 95% of developers out there.
>
> ok, if we combine these, we get:
>
> * clueless
> * non-technical
>
> ..and..
>
> * developer
>
> yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses ..
They're complaining why people aren't using OSS and GNU/Linux. If they
clearly state that GNU/Linux is only for developers willing to learn
the system than in that market they probably have the majority of the
users. Bust most people over there are neither developers, nor admins
nor ready to become power users, they just want their job done. if FSF
don't want those they should say that and leave the market to ms and
apple.
>
> lol
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:43:31 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses
>> ..
> They're complaining why people aren't using OSS and GNU/Linux. If they
> clearly state that GNU/Linux is only for developers willing to learn the
> system than in that market they probably have the majority of the users.
> Bust most people over there are neither developers, nor admins nor ready
> to become power users, they just want their job done. if FSF don't want
> those they should say that and leave the market to ms and apple.
I installed Ubuntu for a couple of friends and relatives, none of them
very computer literate. Install is quite easy, I just pop in the CD,
select a few options and wait for stuff to install, then add some media
and other repositories, I did it for them, but then taught them how to
upgrade. They have been using it ever since, no complaints.
The key point has been educating them about what to expect. The benefits
are no more malware, no more tedious hunting for software and/or
upgrades, rock-solid reliability. The downside is that you can't install
any exe file you just get from the net, but having seen where that leads
(unusable computer in 1 year), I consider that a benefit.
When making Linux vs Windows comparisons, many people are tend to ignore
that Windows has a high TCO and needs expertise if you want to keep it
operating for a longer duration.
Anyhow, back to the original point: I agree with Lars here. I see little
benefit in providing sugar-coated IDEs for developers who are otherwise
clueless. Sun tried that with a whole language called Java, look at the
results.
Tamas
Ah well, another thread devolved into the old open/free/Free/FSF/
Public vs. commercial/Windows/majority-lusers chestnut.
If it's all the same to y'all; I really don't care one iota about any
of this. I just know that there are numerous people using Windows as
their main platform who would like to get into LISP (a few responses
to this thread demonstrate as much).
I'm sure that out of those at least a few (if not many) will have the
intellectual capabilities necessary to actually be able to learn
Common LISP (previous posts to the contrary notwithstanding; once
you've figured how to make anything run stably on Windows, you should
be able to tackle a lot more :-))
After all, there are some very clever on this list who have Windows as
at least one of their Common LISP environments already (Edi comes to
mind: of course, he did the smart thing and chose Lispworks and I'll
be pointing newbies to that and Allegro and Corman as well, to follow
his good example).
Nevertheless, fact remains, a lot of people are disappointed to see
the licensing and crippling of free editions of Lispworks and Allegro,
and the relative bareness of Corman; I just intend to lower that
particular threshold and a few others.
So, since this thread has degraded, I'm just going to go ahead and do
what I set out to do and will start a brand new all-shiny, singing and
dancing new thread when I have some progress to report.
You all have fun continuing the discussions!
Ben.
jvdvyah escribi�:
> Ah well, another thread devolved into the old open/free/Free/FSF/
> Public vs. commercial/Windows/majority-lusers chestnut.
>
> If it's all the same to y'all; I really don't care one iota about any
> of this. I just know that there are numerous people using Windows as
> their main platform who would like to get into LISP (a few responses
> to this thread demonstrate as much).
>
> I'm sure that out of those at least a few (if not many) will have the
> intellectual capabilities necessary to actually be able to learn
> Common LISP (previous posts to the contrary notwithstanding; once
> you've figured how to make anything run stably on Windows, you should
> be able to tackle a lot more :-))
>
> After all, there are some very clever on this list who have Windows as
> at least one of their Common LISP environments already (Edi comes to
> mind: of course, he did the smart thing and chose Lispworks and I'll
> be pointing newbies to that and Allegro and Corman as well, to follow
> his good example).
>
> Nevertheless, fact remains, a lot of people are disappointed to see
> the licensing and crippling of free editions of Lispworks and Allegro,
> and the relative bareness of Corman; I just intend to lower that
> particular threshold and a few others.
>
> So, since this thread has degraded, I'm just going to go ahead and do
> what I set out to do and will start a brand new all-shiny, singing and
> dancing new thread when I have some progress to report.
>
> You all have fun continuing the discussions!
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Leandro Rios escribi�:
> jvdvyah escribi�:
>> Ah well, another thread devolved into the old open/free/Free/FSF/
>> Public vs. commercial/Windows/majority-lusers chestnut.
>>
>> If it's all the same to y'all; I really don't care one iota about any
>> of this. I just know that there are numerous people using Windows as
>> their main platform who would like to get into LISP (a few responses
>> to this thread demonstrate as much).
>>
>> I'm sure that out of those at least a few (if not many) will have the
>> intellectual capabilities necessary to actually be able to learn
>> Common LISP (previous posts to the contrary notwithstanding; once
>> you've figured how to make anything run stably on Windows, you should
>> be able to tackle a lot more :-))
>>
>> After all, there are some very clever on this list who have Windows as
>> at least one of their Common LISP environments already (Edi comes to
>> mind: of course, he did the smart thing and chose Lispworks and I'll
>> be pointing newbies to that and Allegro and Corman as well, to follow
>> his good example).
>>
>> Nevertheless, fact remains, a lot of people are disappointed to see
>> the licensing and crippling of free editions of Lispworks and Allegro,
>> and the relative bareness of Corman; I just intend to lower that
>> particular threshold and a few others.
>>
>> So, since this thread has degraded, I'm just going to go ahead and do
>> what I set out to do and will start a brand new all-shiny, singing and
>> dancing new thread when I have some progress to report.
>>
>> You all have fun continuing the discussions!
>>
>> Ben.
Sorry, please ignore the previous post. What I wanted to say is that I
see everyone making much ado about nothing. What's the problem? That if
you want to have a noncommercial lisp environment you have to run it in
linux? If none of the free Windows options satisfies your requirements,
choose among these:
- make room for a new partition where to install linux and install it there.
- install linux in a vm in your existing windows partition.
- install linux in a partition and windows in a vm. (This is what I did)
After choosing one of those, you can install emacs+sbcl+slime in linux.
If you install ubuntu (as I did) you can just get the necessary packages
via Synaptic. You can start learning Common Lisp in no time. Some time
later you will be able to get rid of clc and install everything yourself.
In the end you will have learned about CL, linux, slime and emacs.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that good?
If you are going to say that this is a procedure way too involved for a
newbie, please don't. We like to imagine that people learning to program
can handle situations like resizing a partition or installing (and
learning the basics of) a new OS. Please don't tear our illusion apart.
Leandro
On Nov 13, 7:30 pm, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:43:31 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> >> yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses
> >> ..
> > They're complaining why people aren't using OSS and GNU/Linux. If they
> > clearly state that GNU/Linux is only for developers willing to learn the
> > system than in that market they probably have the majority of the users.
> > Bust most people over there are neither developers, nor admins nor ready
> > to become power users, they just want their job done. if FSF don't want
> > those they should say that and leave the market to ms and apple.
>
> I installed Ubuntu for a couple of friends and relatives, none of them
> very computer literate. Install is quite easy, I just pop in the CD,
> select a few options and wait for stuff to install, then add some media
> and other repositories, I did it for them, but then taught them how to
> upgrade. They have been using it ever since, no complaints.
>
> The key point has been educating them about what to expect. The benefits
> are no more malware, no more tedious hunting for software and/or
> upgrades, rock-solid reliability. The downside is that you can't install
> any exe file you just get from the net, but having seen where that leads
> (unusable computer in 1 year), I consider that a benefit.
I guess you're right about educating, but in the end the user must
decide. I've installed pc-bsd to a classmate and he loves it, now I
ask him to help me with the console when I need it. The irony is that
he doesn't know english very well but still manages to install from
source.
bobi
Tamas K Papp wrote:
> Anyhow, back to the original point: I agree with Lars here. I see little
> benefit in providing sugar-coated IDEs for developers who are otherwise
> clueless.
There is a general assumption on this group that those who don't use
emacs are "clueless". I certainly hope for my own sake that this isn't
the case (but I guess it's a paradox: do the "clueless" know that they
are?!).
I don't understand why we celebrate the choice that the Lisp world
offers when referring to the multitude of implementations yet
inexplicably have the opposite opinion when it comes to editors?
To me, getting programmers using Lisp is the most important point. I
know for a fact that some users of ABLE have eventually moved to Slime
once they were comfortable with CL and it's even possible that one or
two may eventually buy a commercial Lisp system. I'm happy to play
even a tiny part in keeping that momentum going.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
Great topic. Did someone find a keybindings?
Maybe someone want to hire me to write/find such a SLIME/Emacs
keybindings together with a docs and all blah-blah-blah.
It wont'be expensive as I'd like to have this too.
I'd suggest to take Visual Studio keybindings. Visual Studio has keys
for almost every feature. Though my personal preference is Borland
Classic.
Here is a fragment of my .emacs
But it is very insufficient...
(modify-syntax-entry ?- "w" lisp-mode-syntax-table)
(add-hook 'slime-load-hook (lambda () (require 'slime-fancy)))
(defun slime-show-sbcl-buffers () "Shows *slime-repl sbcl* É *inferior-
lisp*"
(interactive)
(delete-other-windows)
(switch-to-buffer "*inferior-lisp*")
(switch-to-buffer-other-window "*slime-repl sbcl*")
)
(global-set-key [(control ?\;)] 'slime-show-sbcl-buffers)
(defmacro define-lisp-keys (mode)
`(progn
(define-key ,mode '[(meta backspace)] 'backward-kill-sexp)
(define-key ,mode '[(meta delete)] 'kill-sexp)
(define-key ,mode '[(meta right)] 'forward-sexp)
(define-key ,mode '[(meta left)] 'backward-sexp)
)
)
(define-lisp-keys slime-mode-map)
(define-lisp-keys slime-repl-mode-map)
(define-lisp-keys emacs-lisp-mode-map)
(setq common-lisp-hyperspec-root "/usr/share/doc/clhs/")
(define-key slime-mode-map '[(f1)] 'slime-hyperspec-lookup)
(define-key slime-repl-mode-map '[(f1)] 'slime-hyperspec-lookup)
(global-set-key [C-f3] 'comint-dynamic-complete-filename)
; (global-set-key '[(meta f7)] (iswitchb find-buffer-visiting "sldb"))
(global-set-key '[(control x) (f3)] 'find-file-at-point)
(global-set-key '[(f3)] 'find-file)
(global-set-key '[(meta f3)] 'kill-buffer)
(global-set-key '[(f2)] 'save-buffer)
(global-set-key '[(f6)] 'other-window)
----------(desperately) looking for a lisp job----------------
(tool-bar-mode 0)
(iswitchb-mode 1)
(iswitchb-default-keybindings)
(global-set-key '[(control f12)] 'iswitchb-buffer)
; (defalias 'read-buffer 'iswitchb-read-buffer)
(slime)
(custom-set-variables
;; custom-set-variables was added by Custom.
;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful.
;; Your init file should contain only one such instance.
;; If there is more than one, they won't work right.
'(column-number-mode t)
'(scroll-bar-mode (quote right))
'(show-paren-mode t)
'(transient-mark-mode t)
'(x-select-enable-clipboard t))
<···············@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| There is a general assumption on this group that those who don't use
| emacs are "clueless". I certainly hope for my own sake that this isn't
| the case (but I guess it's a paradox: do the "clueless" know that they
| are?!).
+---------------
It's not *always* cluelessness. In my case it's simply having
learned "the moded way" nearly four decades ago [hint: TECO]
and thus being much more comfortable with moded editors such
as Vi in which most editing commands are lower-case letters
(or at worst, upper-case). Conversely, my fingers simply don't
work well with the monster chords Emacs wants. Sobeit. Using
Vi doesn't get in my way, so it's a non-issue for me.
+---------------
| I don't understand why we celebrate the choice that the Lisp world
| offers when referring to the multitude of implementations yet
| inexplicably have the opposite opinion when it comes to editors?
+---------------
Well, I certainly am willing to believe that Emacs+Slime is *better*
for coding Lisp in the hands of an expert (if your fingers permit
their use!) than other editors/IDEs. The only question for me is
how *much* better? My personal experience [reported elsewhere, so
I'll be brief here] is that the answer is -- for me -- not *enough*
better to be worth the pain of switching. Look, to my knowledge
my choice of editor has *never* been an obstacle (or at least not
so large that I noticed) to coding in either Scheme or Common Lisp.
+---------------
| To me, getting programmers using Lisp is the most important point.
+---------------
Yup. In the words of his Kennyness, "Shut up & code!" Whatever editor
you already have that you feel comfortable with is almost certainly
"good enough" to start coding in Lisp... to get very far, in fact.
+---------------
| I know for a fact that some users of ABLE have eventually moved
| to Slime once they were comfortable with CL...
+---------------
Sure, but the important thing is to *start coding*...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 08:43 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:26 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > I'm damn sure that clueless non-technical user can't configure it to
> > > work, no matter what FSF pricks say
> >
> > ..hm..
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:42 -0800, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > So whenever I see development tool that doesn't have a windows
> > > version I ask myself what were you people thinking? You just excluded
> > > 95% of developers out there.
> >
> > ok, if we combine these, we get:
> >
> > * clueless
> > * non-technical
> >
> > ..and..
> >
> > * developer
> >
> > yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses ..
> They're complaining why people aren't using OSS and GNU/Linux.
er, no .. most do not care, really .. they follow what for them(!) makes
most sense, is most fun or pays
heh .. you `winxp-with-keygen-included.torrent' people are weird ..
people don't write software for you; they write it for themselves in one
way or another .. you do not _deserve_ anything by-default
> If they
> clearly state that GNU/Linux is only for developers willing to learn
> the system than in that market they probably have the majority of the
> users. Bust most people over there are neither developers, nor admins
> nor ready to become power users, they just want their job done. if FSF
> don't want those they should say that and leave the market to ms and
> apple.
who are we talking about again? what jobs? how does this (and these
jobs) relate to programming?
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> yeah .. i'm sure the "FSF'ers" are going *facepalm* over their losses ..
> They're complaining why people aren't using OSS and GNU/Linux. If they
> clearly state that GNU/Linux is only for developers willing to learn
> the system than in that market they probably have the majority of the
> users. Bust most people over there are neither developers, nor admins
> nor ready to become power users, they just want their job done. if FSF
> don't want those they should say that and leave the market to ms and
> apple.
Thankfully we live in a world where one can write software freely
without having to ask the FSF (or any other body) for permission or
having to conform to their regulations.
In short: You overestimate the role of the FSF in the free software world.