5 ms·

I tried learning lisp with SLIME and I hated it so much (especially compared to Visual Studio) that switched to notepad++ and running SBCL in my console. Eventu

by guiomie 11y ago

I tried learning lisp with SLIME and I hated it so much (especially compared to Visual Studio) that switched to notepad++ and running SBCL in my console. Eventually I lost interest in lisp, id like to get back to it, but SLIME has really left a bad impression on me.

informatimago 11y ago
I won't argue, slime, like a lot of emacs tools, are not necessarily the right tool for everybody, at all stage. For very beginners, any editor they're familiar with will do (but if they're beginner, how would they be familiar with any editor? Just start with emacs, it's as simple as any other, click and point etc; you can try it anything you do with Notepad, do exactly the same with emacs and you will get the same results). And indeed, using a CL implementation in the terminal (but with rlwrap if you're use a read-line deficient implementation; clisp has it included), for your first steps can be a better learning experience than using sophisticated GUIs. Just like I wouldn't advise to use Xcode or Visual Studio to a beginner starting to learn C or C++: just edit your code with ed(1), and run { cc -o hw hw.c } in the terminal. Be sure to teach in advanced lessons about the ed(1) command: ! cc -o hw hw.c && ./hw RET like: $ ed hw.lisp hw.lisp: No such file or directory i (defun main () (princ "Hello World!") (terpri)) (main) . w 59 !clisp -norc -q hw.lisp Hello World! ! 1,$n 1 (defun main () 2 (princ "Hello World!") 3 (terpri)) 4 (main) q $ Somebody who lacks this experience, cannot understand the benefits of "IDE" or of emacs and slime. But also, the feature of calling out external programs like a compiler from an editor, exists in any good editor, not just emacs. Only it's emacs it's easier because you can customize it much more. It becomes clear when the newbie will have typed a hundred times: !clisp -l myprogram.lisp -x '(main)' RET Then you introduce him to emacs and slime and he will feel you're Jesus came back to save him.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  > but with rlwrap if you're use a read-line deficient implementation; clisp has it included Big point. The raw sbcl repl really hurts unless you use a superior mode or at least rlwrap.
59nadir 11y ago
If you lost interest in the language and won't take it up again because a feature you don't NEED (and is in fact unrelated to the language itself), then I'm prepared to say that's not really the problem here. You're just not that into it and blaming SLIME or anything else that's part of the ecosystem is just misguided and wrong. You compare SLIME with Visual Studio when they have almost nothing in common and most lispers detest the idea that you have to have something like Visual <anything> to work with a language. If you really want to learn Lisp, sit down with an editor and start running code instead of trying to optimize for a problem you're likely never to stumble upon. When you get it, you'll gladly write Lisp even if they mandate that you're only allowed to use a chisel and stone tablets.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Are you aware that Smalltalk and Interlisp-D/Lisp Machines kind of defined how the first IDEs looked like? It is kind of sad that one of the oldest languages that was in the genesis of IDEs and interactive programming should be like, only has Emacs nowadays in its open source offerings.
  - 59nadir 11y ago
    If you're talking about Symbolics Lisp machines I fail to see how the mess that is today's crowded IDEs full of crap have much in common with them. They had powerful tools for introspection and inspection and that seems to me like their defining features. That's a legacy that SLIME carries with it way more than any IDE for any IDE-heavy language.

by guiomie 11y ago

informatimago 11y ago

I won't argue, slime, like a lot of emacs tools, are not necessarily the right tool for everybody, at all stage. For very beginners, any editor they're familiar with will do (but if they're beginner, how would they be familiar with any editor? Just start with emacs, it's as simple as any other, click and point etc; you can try it anything you do with Notepad, do exactly the same with emacs and you will get the same results). And indeed, using a CL implementation in the terminal (but with rlwrap if you're use a read-line deficient implementation; clisp has it included), for your first steps can be a better learning experience than using sophisticated GUIs. Just like I wouldn't advise to use Xcode or Visual Studio to a beginner starting to learn C or C++: just edit your code with ed(1), and run { cc -o hw hw.c } in the terminal. Be sure to teach in advanced lessons about the ed(1) command: ! cc -o hw hw.c && ./hw RET like: $ ed hw.lisp hw.lisp: No such file or directory i (defun main () (princ "Hello World!") (terpri)) (main) . w 59 !clisp -norc -q hw.lisp Hello World! ! 1,$n 1 (defun main () 2 (princ "Hello World!") 3 (terpri)) 4 (main) q $ Somebody who lacks this experience, cannot understand the benefits of "IDE" or of emacs and slime. But also, the feature of calling out external programs like a compiler from an editor, exists in any good editor, not just emacs. Only it's emacs it's easier because you can customize it much more. It becomes clear when the newbie will have typed a hundred times: !clisp -l myprogram.lisp -x '(main)' RET Then you introduce him to emacs and slime and he will feel you're Jesus came back to save him.

pvaldes 11y ago
> but with rlwrap if you're use a read-line deficient implementation; clisp has it included Big point. The raw sbcl repl really hurts unless you use a superior mode or at least rlwrap.

59nadir 11y ago

If you lost interest in the language and won't take it up again because a feature you don't NEED (and is in fact unrelated to the language itself), then I'm prepared to say that's not really the problem here. You're just not that into it and blaming SLIME or anything else that's part of the ecosystem is just misguided and wrong. You compare SLIME with Visual Studio when they have almost nothing in common and most lispers detest the idea that you have to have something like Visual <anything> to work with a language. If you really want to learn Lisp, sit down with an editor and start running code instead of trying to optimize for a problem you're likely never to stumble upon. When you get it, you'll gladly write Lisp even if they mandate that you're only allowed to use a chisel and stone tablets.

pjmlp 11y ago
Are you aware that Smalltalk and Interlisp-D/Lisp Machines kind of defined how the first IDEs looked like? It is kind of sad that one of the oldest languages that was in the genesis of IDEs and interactive programming should be like, only has Emacs nowadays in its open source offerings.
- 59nadir 11y ago
  If you're talking about Symbolics Lisp machines I fail to see how the mess that is today's crowded IDEs full of crap have much in common with them. They had powerful tools for introspection and inspection and that seems to me like their defining features. That's a legacy that SLIME carries with it way more than any IDE for any IDE-heavy language.