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: Giovanni Gigante on 9 Mar 2010 12:33 Teemu Likonen wrote: > > version 1.0.18 which is packaged for Debian 5.0. Me too, at first, thought that abandoning The Debian Way was some kind of capital sin. I wanted to use apt-get and the Common Lisp Controller, which was clearly a wonderful invention, although I did not really understand why. But soon I realized that the debian lisp software was scarce, and so old that no one wanted to listen to my bug reports. So one day I dared to install SBCL directly, and a bunch a libraries, expecting something terrible to happen. It was surprisingly easy. I never went back. Do it. gg
From: Tamas K Papp on 9 Mar 2010 14:36 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:26:19 -0500, Raymond Toy wrote: > 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. Yes, Emacs and SLIME offer a lot of features and may be formidable for a newbie. But the point is that they only have to learn a tiny, tiny fraction of Emacs and SLIME (about 15-20 commands total [1]) to make the latter two already more convenient than the command line. So even with minimal effort, Emacs+SLIME dominate the command line. And then they can pick the rest up as they go along. > 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. Precisely! Even if someone does not use any SLIME features, typing into the REPL within Emacs is already nicer than the command line (once you know M-p etc). Tamas [1] A rough estimate: opening, closing and saving files in Emacs, C-g for escaping, M-x slime: this is 5 things, 3 of them you can do from the menu. In a SLIME buffer: C-x C-e, C-c C-c, C-c C-k; that's another 3. In the repl: ,load-system ,restart-inferior-lisp ,quit. M-p 4 more, 12 in total. I am sure I missed something, but we are likely to be within 20 and this is already way more useful than the command line. There are SLIME reference cards on the net.
From: Ron Garret on 9 Mar 2010 15:50 In article <7vnma8FfpgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:26:19 -0500, Raymond Toy wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, Emacs and SLIME offer a lot of features and may be formidable for > a newbie. But the point is that they only have to learn a tiny, tiny > fraction of Emacs and SLIME (about 15-20 commands total [1]) to make > the latter two already more convenient than the command line. So even > with minimal effort, Emacs+SLIME dominate the command line. And then > they can pick the rest up as they go along. Or they can use Clozure Common Lisp and not have to learn any of that slimy emacsy stuff. rg
From: Patrick May on 9 Mar 2010 19:52 Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> writes: > In article <7vnma8FfpgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, Emacs and SLIME offer a lot of features and may be formidable for >> a newbie. But the point is that they only have to learn a tiny, tiny >> fraction of Emacs and SLIME (about 15-20 commands total [1]) to make >> the latter two already more convenient than the command line. So even >> with minimal effort, Emacs+SLIME dominate the command line. And then >> they can pick the rest up as they go along. > > Or they can use Clozure Common Lisp and not have to learn any of that > slimy emacsy stuff. From my .emacs: (setq inferior-lisp-program "/usr/local/ccl/scripts/ccl64") (require 'slime) (slime-setup '(slime-fancy slime-asdf)) Two great tastes that go great together. ;-) pjm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.softwarematters.org Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO systems design and implementation. (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
From: Vassil Nikolov on 9 Mar 2010 22:07
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:04:55 -0800, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> said: > ... > IMHO CCL dominates CLisp in every respect. Out of curiousity, what is the value of (/ (LOG -1) (SQRT -1)) in CCL? ---Vassil. -- No flies need shaving. |