4 ms·
> - choosing an implementation is a research project (clisp? sbcl? allegro?) - documentation is weaker - libraries are harder to find and install (ASDF vs Rubyg
by shiranaihito 19y ago
> - choosing an implementation is a research project (clisp? sbcl? allegro?) - documentation is weaker - libraries are harder to find and install (ASDF vs Rubygems, Python eggs, etc.) - emacs/slime is an investment to learn - examples are few and far between - the language itself (the words, not the punctuation) is inelegant (mapcar, setq, cdadr)
- Exactly.
Last year I started reading about Lisp etc, and wanted to play with it a little bit.
These are the exact same obstacles I faced.
If you ask about "IDEs" for Lisp, you're met with downright hostility for not embracing the glory of emacs with open arms - anything else is just unfathomable.
Well, what if I'd like to just, you know, start using the language, and not learn a whole new world of an editor first?
"Why does emacs + SLIME have to be the only viable option?"
That's not a question you can ask, of course, but the answer would be something like "roll your own" anytime you need anything.
(Oh, and Xach is a prick. He and Krysztov(or whatever) are practically high-fiving each other on IRC every time they alienate another new would-be Lisper)
As for the implementation research, I sort of came to the conclusion that SBCL was the way to go, but documentation (for anything?) was pretty scarce, and ASDF feels like an obstacle too.
Later on, I realized that Scheme is more elegant as a language, but it's more or less in the same situation as CL.
Compared to these two, something like Python feels much more accessible to me (being a novice at all), because I get the feeling that I can just start using things whenever I want to make that effort.
But that's just it - with Python, there's only the effort of learning the language as you use it.
You learn the standard library as you go, and suddenly you notice you've accomplished a lot of things and had fun while at it.
- At least that's how I imagine it will be when I get around to working on my own super-secret web-startupy project.
With Lisps, you need to make a lot of effort just to get to the beginning, and that's a big problem.
- lnostdal 19y agom-x slime (starts slime and sbcl) c-x-2 (split window in two; one for coding one for REPL) ..open a file at the top window by pressing c-x-f and typing in hello-world.lisp <enter> ..yay, start coding.. c-c-c to eval forms c-c-k to eval/compile the entire file q to close down "popups" (exceptions .. etc.) yawn .. what's the problem? .. are somewhat, "limited"?
- rsynnott 19y agoYou can use CUSP (an Eclipse plugin which provides similar functionality to SLIME for EMACS), and the commercial impls have their own (admittedly EMACS-esque) IDEs. There's even a SLIME-derived plugin for vi! It really is worth the effort to learn EMACS, though. I'm unconvinced that installing lisp libraries is so very horrible; I've had far more trouble with python ones, myself.
- shiranaihito 19y agoI even tried CUSP back then, but it was somehow confusing (or refused to work), I don't remember. Maybe it's because I don't normally use Eclipse. If someone is interested in other alternatives, here's one: http://phil.nullable.eu/ http://phil.nullable.eu/ - Phil's "ABLE" editor. I tried it too, but it didn't work too well on Windows (something about CLISP, iirc).
- feralearthman 19y agoClozure Associates has an open source Common Lisp with an IDE for Mac OS X. We're also working on the documentation. We're specifically working to remove the speed bumps for new Lispers. Check out http://www.clozure.com/clozurecl.html http://www.clozure.com/clozurecl.html. We plan to have IDEs for other OSes too in the future.