the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tim Bradshaw on 11 Apr 2006 19:05 Miles Bader wrote: > Er, can it not now? Tragically, no. > > I'm using rather old hardware (450 MHz PIII), but even the latest Emacs > with all the goo-goo turned on feels rather speedy and light-weight -- > especially compared to typical modern bloatware (for a truly slothful > experience, try Eclipse or VS...). I think it's just that the native mac xemacs port really sucks (*knew* it was a mistake to build it). But still, it *is* the single thing that would most make it better for me. I'm planning on reimplementing it in applescript, which will probably be faster. Damn, you've spoilt my joke now, I may have to kill you. --tim
From: David Kastrup on 11 Apr 2006 19:16 "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > Miles Bader wrote: > >> Er, can it not now? > > Tragically, no. > >> >> I'm using rather old hardware (450 MHz PIII), but even the latest Emacs >> with all the goo-goo turned on feels rather speedy and light-weight -- >> especially compared to typical modern bloatware (for a truly slothful >> experience, try Eclipse or VS...). > > I think it's just that the native mac xemacs port really sucks (*knew* > it was a mistake to build it). XEmacs is not Emacs. The font lock code of XEmacs is older than that of Emacs 21.1, and Emacs 21.1 did not turn on font locking by default for _good_ reason. And what one hears about the XEmacs MacOSX port does not particularly recommend it, anyway. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: Tim Bradshaw on 11 Apr 2006 20:27 David Kastrup wrote: > > XEmacs is not Emacs. Um, yes, it is. It may not be whatever your little cult prefers to anoint, but that's a different issue, and I don't really care for cults anyway (Oh God, I just realised this is going to comp.emacs: I shall expect people with pitchforks and torches at the door any minute, chanting whatever slogan whoever it is you worship has blessed this week). >The font lock code of XEmacs is older than that > of Emacs 21.1, and Emacs 21.1 did not turn on font locking by default > for _good_ reason. This is nothing to do with that - I used font lock on Xemacs on sub-100-MHz (probably sub 50MHz) machines just fine, and before FSF Emacs *had* fonts (well, technically I used it on lemacs of course). > > And what one hears about the XEmacs MacOSX port does not particularly > recommend it, anyway. All the emacs mac ports suck more-or-less equally. That is, as I said, why I'm reimplementing it in applescript. (To be precise: I'm implementing a PDP10 emulator in applescript, and I then plan on getting ITS up and running TECO emacs.) --tim
From: M Jared Finder on 11 Apr 2006 21:59 Miles Bader wrote: > M Jared Finder <jared(a)hpalace.com> writes: >> also rebinds C-a to select all, instead of beginning-of-line. > > Erg. That's just evil... Why? The home and end keys are on every keyboard I've seen in the past ten years, and work fine under xterm and ssh just fine. Why do we need C-a and C-e any more? -- MJF
From: Rob Warnock on 11 Apr 2006 23:09
Sacha <no(a)address.spam> wrote: +--------------- | "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote in message | > Emacs is like a guitar: imperfect, hard to learn, but you can | > do great things with it. ... | | Agreed, that's why i choose to easy route...learn the keystrokes | while not being stuck with emacs itself... When i'll feel more | comfortable, maybe i'll switch... I just feel it is pretty bad that | we have to work with this ages old tool. Lisp is supposedly one of | the best languages around, it's sad we have to overcome the emacs | barrier in order to use it effectively. +--------------- Well, actually, you don't!! Really. Despite the cries of "Heretic! Heretic! Burn the heretic!" you'll probably hear in response to this post, it is *NOT* necessary to use Emacs to use Common Lisp [or Scheme] effectively. I started using Scheme in 1992 and had more-or-less completely switched to Common Lisp by 2000 and I *still* use only Vi[1], and have written several medium-sized production apps and a *host* of small tools in both Scheme and Common Lisp without *ever* feeling that my editing environment was in any way a hindrance. All you really need is an editor that: - You're comfortable & fluent with, so that thinking about editing doesn't interfere with thinking about *programming*; - Has at least basic parenthesis matching[2]; - Has either language-sensitive indenting (Emacs) *OR* standard text-based auto-indent (Vi) [that is, so that when you type an "Enter" at the end of an indented line the editor starts the next line under the first non-blank character of the previous line], plus some way to shift a bunch of lines right or left by one column. (It's *nice* if you can shift a whole s-expr[3], or shift by more than one column at a time, but not necessary.) Everything else is just gravy.[4] If you want to learn Lisp, then LEARN LISP!! Use whatever editor you already know, pasting code from an editor buffer into a Lisp REPL [or do an editor "Save" and then type (LOAD "filename") in the REPL, whichever makes more sense depending on how much has changed]. But *don't* let learning Emacs (or Slime) slow you down! You *CAN* learn Lisp and "use it effectively" without it. Really, you can. Then, assuming that you become convinced that Lisp is for you, ;-} if you later want to see whether Emacs/Slime will *further* improve your productivity, well, then give it a try. But *DON'T* blame Emacs for lack of success with Lisp, either at first or later. That's just not right. -Rob [1] Not for lack of trying, multiple times, to switch to Emacs. My fingers simply do *not* "chord" well -- sorry 'bout that. And I *like* "moded" editors such as TECO, Bravo, and Vi where lower-case characters are used for editing commands [except in insert mode], since I tend to alternate between fairly long periods of thinking followed by fairly long periods of uninterrupted "inserting" followed by moderate periods of "editing"... and then some testing & more thinking. But YMMV. [2] Vi has matching-paren flashing *and* the ability to jump back & forth between matching parens, as well as using such "motion" indications as a selector for other operations. E.g., when sitting on a paren, "d%" deletes the whole s-expr [which you can then paste in somewhere else with "p" or "P"]. Even better, if you're sitting on a space *before* an open paren, "d%" deletes the space, too, so you can swap two s-exprs easily. Changing (FOO (BAR 35) (BAZ 53 21)) into (FOO (BAZ 53 21) (BAR 35)) takes just 5 keystrokes: "d%l%p". Longer than Meta-Ctrl-whatever in Emacs, but not *that* much longer... [3] Vi can do that. Assuming you've set your "shift width" to 1 (":se sw=1"), which IMHO is the only sane value when coding Lisp/Scheme in Vi, then at a paren ">%" will shift all of the lines containing the indicated s-expr right one column, and >%...." will shift them right 5. Ditto "<%" and "<%....", etc. [4] Well, you probably also need some kind of bit-mapped desktop that at least lets you keep several windows open at once (including an HTTP browser or two) and lets you cut&paste easily between windows -- say, X Windows with even the *dumbest* window manager, e.g., "twm" [which is what I use]. Personally, I insist on "focus follows mouse" [as opposed to "click to focus"] *without* "raise window on focus", which is why I don't like MS Windows very much. [Somebody once said you can tweak it to the prefs I like, but I never could figure out how without breaking a bunch of ither stuff.] Having a separate window open to a REPL into which you can type APROPOS and DESCRIBE and INSPECT and the occasional bit of code [or a LOAD or ASDF command] is pretty necessary, too. ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607 |