Re: Sadness in my heart...
Very good,
so please name what from the list I've mentioned already exists. The
only thing I know
is magit(which has nothing to do with a SLIME), no problems with it.
But all other issues, which of them
exists? Jump to slot definition was not possible for me in Slime
connected to LispWorks (we are in the LW users list remember, I don't know
if it is available for SBCL). Can't see the slot documentation either
(granted what you don't have an access to it despite of the keyword in
CL standard, but anyways). Incremental compilation I meant the
background compilation like in IntelliJ IDEA (or Emacs flymake), so at
any particular point of time the parse tree is available helping syntax
highlighting, showing potential errors, smart code completion etc. Maybe
it is available in SLIME, but I can't recall it the last time I used it.
For example, defining method like
(defmethod on-candidates-menu-delete ((self main-window))
(with-slots (proposal-table ...
I would like to press tab in the place of dots and have a list of all
slots in the class main-window, and the incremental compilation seems to
be the only way to do it (if the main-window class is already defined
with all the necessary slots). I can't have it now, neither in SLIME nor
in LW IDE.
Can't see any breakpoint-related items in SLIME menu either. Maybe in
documentation somewhere?
Can't recall method/slot renaming in SLIME either as other refactoring capabilities.
Anyway since it is a LW HUG list I would expect to have these features in
LW IDE mostly, not in SLIME.
Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.net> writes:
> This isn't a SLIME forum, so I won't go into details, but several of the
> features that you say are not available in SLIME are, in fact, available
> (e.g., incremental compilation). Others should be easy to add (hover
> over documentation display). And so forth....
>
> On 4/28/16 Apr 28 -4:47 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
>>
>> Here while I agree what C++ is somewhat harder than CL, I couldn't agree
>> it is much harder. I'm toying around CL and Emacs Lisp for a few years
>> already and still stumble upon problems with understanding the
>> necessity of things like alexandria:switch (when we have 'case' in a
>> standard), different comparison functions
>> (eq/eql/equal/equalp/string=/string-equal), different svref/aref/nth,
>> different (maybe historical) idiosyncrasies like remembering at which argument
>> position in the hash
>> table should be in gethash, syntax for LOOP (I guess it will require
>> years to master it, and in most cases it is easier to just write
>> something from scratch), syntaxes for defpackage, defclass and others
>> alike (which of arguments should be a list of lists or just a list and
>> so on) and so on and so on. CL is not a small language and certainly not
>> without a hishorical legacy.
>>
>> But about lack of IDEs I agree with you absolutely. I used only
>> Emacs/Slime and LW IDE. However they certainly lack some
>> features of modern IDEs or other image-based languages
>> which I would love to use. Where is reliable
>> "jump to definition"? (I can't jump to definition of the slot from
>> with-slots for instance)? How can I get a documentation of the function
>> hovering a mouse above it? How could I rename a slot and all places
>> where it is used including its readers/writers and their use? How do I
>> just rename a method (for example if the method has ubiquitous name but unique
>> in a
>> package of course)? Where is incremental compilation? Conditional
>> breakpoints? Hopefully the graphical stepper exists only in LW IDE,
>> common, insert "format" or "break" around the code in 21st century?
>> Where are "debug/release" modes, why I have to write it manually in
>> delivery script? Where is a dependency tracking, why I have to write
>> asdf :serial or count which file is used from which manually ? Even gcc
>> supports -M? family of flags etc to generate dependencies? Why we don't
>> have syntax highlighting in neither SLIME nor LW Listener? Why I can't
>> open a definition of the function I've just evaluated like I can in APL
>> or Smalltalk? Why I can't read the documentation on a slot I've defined?
>>
>> I guess a some of these complains cannot be implemented because of the
>> dynamic nature of the language. But most of it could be implemented to
>> some extent anyway.
>>
>>
>> Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga@mmsindia.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I am familiar with a few languages including C++, Java and Lisp. I agree
>>> C++ is notoriously ³hard" (note that these qualifiers depend on the
>>> individual and so are highly subjective), much harder than Lisp. Even
>>> though I am ³comfortable² with Lisp, I find certain parts (concepts)
>>> tougher to understand and use. This is true of most languages, I guess.
>>>
>>> My main point is that (other than what Syed has expressed about VC++) even
>>> the ³expensive² environments such as LispWorks or even Allegro Lisp (I use
>>> both of them) do not have as capable an IDE (with ³rich² GUI Designer
>>> built-in) as for example VC++ or Embarcadero RAD Studio. These days GUIs
>>> are very important and rich UI frameworks and libraries are available for
>>> C++ and Java. RAD Studio allows you to target multiple platforms (VC++ 15
>>> has such a support now). You can very quickly build and deploy a simple
>>> multi-platform application in RAD Studio. My only wish is that Lisp
>>> environments must rise upto this level. The ³language" alone is not the
>>> issue these days.
>>>
>>> Those who have been working in Lisp IDEs must take a look at the above
>>> IDEs. Of course, I should definitely mention IntelliJ IDEA for Java!
>>> Simply adorable!!
>>>
>>> -Rangarajan
>>> http://rangakrish.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/04/16 6:56 am, "Syed Zaeem Hosain" <Syed.Hosain@aeris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An interesting thread ...
>>>>
>>>> My issue is the lack of an inexpensive (better: "FREE") robust Lisp
>>>> environment/compiler where I can write and deliver programs for the
>>>> little projects I do now for myself and a few others.
>>>>
>>>> So, for what I have written recently, the Community version of Visual
>>>> Studio is inexpensive (i.e., FREE!) and *works* well ... because these
>>>> projects cannot justify my paying for a robust Lisp development system.
>>>>
>>>> For this purpose, the $1500 cost of the 64-bit HobbyistDV edition is
>>>> ridiculous, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> And 64-bit Hobbyist is unusable because of the lack of a "deliver"
>>>> function (momentarily ignoring the $750 cost). See
>>>> http://www.lispworks.com/buy/prices-1h.html ...
>>>>
>>>> My point is that Microsoft's Visual Studio Community edition _works_ for
>>>> my needs (to distribute free programs for myself and a few others) ....
>>>> LispWorks simply does *not*. I don't know of another robust Lisp
>>>> environment that I _could_ use.
>>>>
>>>> As a result, my programs are now all in C and C++ ... even though I would
>>>> _much_ rather program in Lisp, of course! Till somebody makes a robust
>>>> FREE delivery environment for Lisp, with free run-times delivery, this
>>>> will remain the case.
>>>>
>>>> Z
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-lisp-hug@lispworks.com [mailto:owner-lisp-
>>>>> hug@lispworks.com] On Behalf Of Paul Tarvydas
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 05:17 PM
>>>>> To: David McClain <dbm@refined-audiometrics.com>
>>>>> Cc: LispWorks <lisp-hug@lispworks.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Sadness in my heart...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, after 30+ years of thinking about programming, I¹ve come to
>>>>> conclusion that the hatred for Lisp is due to Š
>>>>>
>>>>> Syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> 99.999% of ³programmers² think that they need to have a ³structured²
>>>>> syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lisp is essentially a syntax-less language. A bunch of concrete parse
>>>>> trees. A
>>>>> high level assembler.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, Lisp is the back-end of a compiler, after the syntax has been
>>>>> stripped
>>>>> off.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote Œparaphrase' (experimental)
>>>>> https://github.com/guitarvydas/paraphrase to show that just about any
>>>>> syntax can be grafted onto Lisp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I enjoy the freedom of writing in a high-level assembler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, most programmers cannot handle this concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> pt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:51 AM, David McClain <dbm@refined-
>>>>> audiometrics.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since last August, I have been using a tool called PixInsight quite
>>>>> regularly.
>>>>> Perhaps some of you are familiar with it. It is an image processing
>>>>> tool, meant
>>>>> for reduction of stacks of astronomical images, to produce visual
>>>>> results. It is
>>>>> quite an elegant tool, written by an outstanding group of astronomers in
>>>>> Spain, and provides access to some of the most recent and powerful
>>>>> processing concepts - MURE denoising, wavelet transform filtering, etc.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> also largely open source. Non-scientists often describe PixInsight as
>>>>> having a
>>>>> vertical learning curve. But I take to it like a fish to water. I love
>>>>> itŠ almost...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what saddens me deeply is that this brilliant crew spent so many
>>>>> hours
>>>>> slaving away in C++ and providing a JavaScript API at the user level for
>>>>> extensions. Their code is quite brilliant, but the system could have
>>>>> been
>>>>> written with far less effort, and made far more powerful at the user
>>>>> extension level, had they chosen to do their system in a Lisp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is shocking to see such bright minds ignorant of programming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just my 2cŠ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - DM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users lisp-hug@lispworks..com
>>>>>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
>>>>> lisp-hug@lispworks.com
>>>>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
>>>> lisp-hug@lispworks.com
>>>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
>>> lisp-hug@lispworks.com
>>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>>
>>
>
--
Br,
/Alexey
_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html