The correct choice for implementation
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: The correct choice for implementation (was: A simple web client library)
Next: The correct choice for implementation (was: A simple web clientlibrary)
From: Tamas K Papp on 9 Mar 2010 09:13 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:44:31 +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-03-09 11:51 (UTC), Tamas K. Papp wrote: > >> Note that SBCL can also run scripts > > Good. Unfortunately the "--script" option is not available in SBCL > version 1.0.18 which is packaged for Debian 5.0. But I'll write a simple > launcher script. That is more than a year old, SBCL has advanced a lot in the meantime. The only use of Debian's prepackaged SBCL binary is to compile the latest binary. I would recommend that you get & compile the latest SBCL binary using clbuild, and get the latest slime via the same method. Debian's Emacs (in testing) should be OK. I know this is a bit of a hassle when you do it for the first time, but once done, it will give you a much better user experience. >> If you readline support, chances are that you are making your life more >> difficult than it should be (hint: use SLIME), but rlwrap will give it >> to you in SBCL. > > I use SLIME but I'd also like my simple program's have a nice line > editing. I'm not fan of those ^[[D^[[C^[[C^[[A^[[D codes in my terminal > when I use arrow keys in programs' prompts. That is a different issue then. For a simple GUI, I would recommend LTK too. >> Anyway, trying out different implementations is not that big of a deal >> in CL, so I don't really see why you didn't just try instead of >> complaining before you do. > > Well, I'm a beginner and I think it's an annoyance. None of my simple > programs worked out-of-the-box with SBCL. But maybe I could think of it > as a learning experience... I understand that you are frustrated, but many people are using SBCL with good results, so I guess that the problem is on your end. Frequently, it happens that people who have prior experience with other languages/environments want to keep doing things in contorted ways, even though there are perfectly good, commonly used solutions for their problems. Tamas
From: Peter Keller on 9 Mar 2010 11:16 Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:44:31 +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: >> Well, I'm a beginner and I think it's an annoyance. None of my simple >> programs worked out-of-the-box with SBCL. But maybe I could think of it >> as a learning experience... > > I understand that you are frustrated, but many people are using SBCL > with good results, so I guess that the problem is on your end. > Frequently, it happens that people who have prior experience with > other languages/environments want to keep doing things in contorted > ways, even though there are perfectly good, commonly used solutions > for their problems. I had recently set up SBCL on my linux box because the vendor version was too old. I wrote a blog post about clbuild, maybe you'll find it useful: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~psilord/blog/26.html In the end it took about a week to learn the goo surrounding developing with a current SBCL in Common Lisp from a cold start, but I don't care so much about that time. It is just an entry fee one pays when learning any new system. A postscript to that post is now I use SLIME as my lisp IDE. Later, -pete
From: Zach Beane on 9 Mar 2010 12:20 Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes: > * Note: I don't actually have anything against CLisp. I think it's a > fine implementation. But AFAIK it lacks threads, which is a major > deficiency. http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes.html#mt has some info about the state of CLISP's thread support. Zach
From: Nicolas Neuss on 9 Mar 2010 12:23 Teemu Likonen <tlikonen(a)iki.fi> writes: > * 2010-03-09 11:25 (+0100), Petter Gustad wrote: > >> Do you have any particular reason why you want to use CLISP and not >> SBCL if you're on Linux? If not I would suggest using SBCL. > > I don't know. When I started I heard nobody saying that CLISP is the > wrong choice. I think CLISP works nicely. It can run scripts that begin > with #!/usr/bin/clisp (out-of-the-box) and there is this nice readline > support automatically, even with (read-line *query-io*). > > Maybe I'll switch to SBCL but I'm pretty sure that some other areas suck > in SBCL. Maybe some other libraries won't work. Since (IIRC) nobody has said it yet: There are nice commercial CLs with trial editions (Allegro CL, Lispworks) which are very good for doing first steps painlessly. Then, only when you should have decided that you like CL, you can bother with Emacs/SLIME/sbcl/clbuild/etc. Nicolas
From: Raymond Toy on 9 Mar 2010 12:26
On 3/9/10 9:19 AM, Tamas K Papp wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:09:09 +0000, Erik Winkels wrote: > >> On 2010-03-09, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:18:29 +0000, Erik Winkels wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-09, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If you readline support, chances are that you are making your life >>>>> more difficult than it should be >>>> >>>> Not really. >>> >>> I wonder why you say that. Do you program by typing code into the >>> command line? I don't really see how that would be comfortable, let >>> alone productive. >> >> I don't do that but although I generally use Emacs + SLIME developing >> without them using a CL implementation with readline support is pretty >> painless. Better than sending a beginner off to Emacs + SLIME if he >> doesn't have experience with them, especially since he's apparently >> already familiar with readline based environments. >> >> After all redefining functions is only a :w and a history-1 away :) > > I disagree. I think that investing even just an hour into learning > some basic SLIME functionality has significant payoffs. Only if they already know some emacs. Otherwise they get to fight three things: emacs, slime, and Lisp. > > But convenience aside, I don't even understand how people manage to do > _any_ serious work just using the command line, with or without readline > support (cf http://xkcd.com/378/ :-) I do quite a bit of stuff from the command line. Well, REPL might be more accurate. Most of it is exploratory and almost all of it is either in with emacs shell mode or with the slime repl. Maybe that doesn't count as "command line", but it's typing directly into the repl. Ray |