8 ms·

Sly: Sylvester the Cat's Common Lisp IDE

86 points by molteanu 8y ago

agambrahma 8y ago
Is this somehow tied to SBCL, or generally useful across all implementations (e.g. Lispworks) ?
- Zuider 8y ago
  It is a slimmed down, modernized fork of Slime. Slime works across all Common Lisp implementations. Sly takes advantage of improvements to Emacs Elisp implemented in Emacs 24.3 and higher. So it looks like it is not tied to any particular Common Lisp implementation, but you need to use a modern Emacs.
  - fovc 8y ago
    Modern is a relative term. 24.3 was released in 2013!
  - agambrahma 8y ago
    Ah good, will try it out then!
- PuercoPop 8y ago
  Same as Slime. Works across implementations.
xuejie 8y ago
Just curious: other than established convention, is there anything that Sly/Slime provide that are still missing in Language Server Protocol(https://langserver.org/ https://langserver.org/)? Would it benefit more to move to a lsp-based solution so we can make Common Lisp more modern-editor friendly?
- Bizarro 8y ago
  Was just thinking that if I could get a decent editor experience in VSCode, I'd love to play around with Common Lisp again.
  - S4M 8y ago
    Honest question: what is preventing you from trying Common Lisp in Emacs?
    - fredsir 8y ago
      I'd recommend anyone to do so. I have been programming professionally for almost 15 years, and never used emacs nor lisp until a month ago. I have however used a lot of other languages, and have been using vim as my main editor for the last 10 years. I tried emacs because of org-mode a month ago, and decided to use vim for writing code and emacs for managing my life, but after a few weeks, I ended up just using vim inside emacs (evil) and switching completely to emacs. Learning a bit of elisp to configure emacs, prompted me to give lisp a closer look, and now I'm full-steam-ahead learning Common Lisp and loving it!
    - Bizarro 8y ago
      I've been down the Emacs road a couple times. It's just not going to happen. It comes down to to time. I have a limited amount of it and investing in Emacs isn't worth it. Obviously Emacs will have users for years to come, but its future is bleak.
      - cityroasted 8y ago
        That's a strange thing to say. GNU Emacs has been around 33, years, is still very actively developed, is GPL so could be forked, and seems more popular than ever. You don't have to justify your decision to not use Emacs by saying Emacs has a bleak future. I think Emacs probably has the most secure future of any text editor or IDE.
        Bizarro 8y ago
- jlarocco 8y ago
  I'm not very familiar with LSP, but I think it's a fundamentally different thing than Slime. Slime is a full REPL, like Python's IDLE or Ruby's IRB, but 100x better. LSP is just a generic way of doing autocomplete and source code referencing. Swank (the server side of Slime) does provide some functions that are used to do LSP-like things, but those are only a subset of the features. It may be possible to rip out those parts and make them use LSP instead, but I doubt it's worth it because the LSP server would still have to run in the same Lisp image so that it could know about the dynamically defined symbols.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  That's like asking what LSP is missing that visual studio provides. Slime is a full-blown IDE that just happens to be implemented in elisp. That being said, LSP doesn't do anything for providing indentation rules to editors; editors not named "emacs" are at best poor at indenting lisp code, and many modern editors do not provide pluggable indentation. Because of the fewer distinct visual blocks in lisp, properly indented code is important for readability. I think the main reason an LSP hasn't been implemented for lisp is that nobody that has the skills to make one has any use for one.
  - phoe-krk 8y ago
    I think the main reason an LSP hasn't been implemented for lisp is that nobody that has the skills to make one has any use for one. Exactly this. LSP is inferior to Slime and Sly and therefore next to useless to Lispers.
- capitaomorte1 8y ago
  I'm Sly's author. There is CL specific functionality, most notably an inspector, a debugger, and a REPL that are not very well covered by LSP right now. That said: 1. I've heard of an experimental microsof-sponsored DAP (Debugger Adpater Protocol) which is similar to LSP and uses some of its underlying transport mechanics. 2. I have another Emacs extension, Eglot (http://github.com/joaotavora/eglot http://github.com/joaotavora/eglot) for LSP. It follows roughly the same implementation patterns as Sly, so if you like one you might like to try the other.
TheCraiggers 8y ago
I've been a vi user for all of my Linux computing life. Watching the gifs in this repo put me in the shoes of coworkers watching me type in arcane symbols in vi to do 'magic'. I feel like I should give emacs a download and try to wrap my brain around it, if for no other reason than to be more well-rounded.

86 points by molteanu 8y ago

agambrahma 8y ago

Is this somehow tied to SBCL, or generally useful across all implementations (e.g. Lispworks) ?

Zuider 8y ago
It is a slimmed down, modernized fork of Slime. Slime works across all Common Lisp implementations. Sly takes advantage of improvements to Emacs Elisp implemented in Emacs 24.3 and higher. So it looks like it is not tied to any particular Common Lisp implementation, but you need to use a modern Emacs.
- fovc 8y ago
  Modern is a relative term. 24.3 was released in 2013!
- agambrahma 8y ago
  Ah good, will try it out then!
PuercoPop 8y ago
Same as Slime. Works across implementations.

xuejie 8y ago

Just curious: other than established convention, is there anything that Sly/Slime provide that are still missing in Language Server Protocol(https://langserver.org/ https://langserver.org/)? Would it benefit more to move to a lsp-based solution so we can make Common Lisp more modern-editor friendly?

Bizarro 8y ago
Was just thinking that if I could get a decent editor experience in VSCode, I'd love to play around with Common Lisp again.
- S4M 8y ago
  Honest question: what is preventing you from trying Common Lisp in Emacs?
  - fredsir 8y ago
    I'd recommend anyone to do so. I have been programming professionally for almost 15 years, and never used emacs nor lisp until a month ago. I have however used a lot of other languages, and have been using vim as my main editor for the last 10 years. I tried emacs because of org-mode a month ago, and decided to use vim for writing code and emacs for managing my life, but after a few weeks, I ended up just using vim inside emacs (evil) and switching completely to emacs. Learning a bit of elisp to configure emacs, prompted me to give lisp a closer look, and now I'm full-steam-ahead learning Common Lisp and loving it!
  - Bizarro 8y ago
    I've been down the Emacs road a couple times. It's just not going to happen. It comes down to to time. I have a limited amount of it and investing in Emacs isn't worth it. Obviously Emacs will have users for years to come, but its future is bleak.
    - cityroasted 8y ago
      That's a strange thing to say. GNU Emacs has been around 33, years, is still very actively developed, is GPL so could be forked, and seems more popular than ever. You don't have to justify your decision to not use Emacs by saying Emacs has a bleak future. I think Emacs probably has the most secure future of any text editor or IDE.
      - Bizarro 8y ago
jlarocco 8y ago
I'm not very familiar with LSP, but I think it's a fundamentally different thing than Slime. Slime is a full REPL, like Python's IDLE or Ruby's IRB, but 100x better. LSP is just a generic way of doing autocomplete and source code referencing. Swank (the server side of Slime) does provide some functions that are used to do LSP-like things, but those are only a subset of the features. It may be possible to rip out those parts and make them use LSP instead, but I doubt it's worth it because the LSP server would still have to run in the same Lisp image so that it could know about the dynamically defined symbols.
aidenn0 8y ago
That's like asking what LSP is missing that visual studio provides. Slime is a full-blown IDE that just happens to be implemented in elisp. That being said, LSP doesn't do anything for providing indentation rules to editors; editors not named "emacs" are at best poor at indenting lisp code, and many modern editors do not provide pluggable indentation. Because of the fewer distinct visual blocks in lisp, properly indented code is important for readability. I think the main reason an LSP hasn't been implemented for lisp is that nobody that has the skills to make one has any use for one.
- phoe-krk 8y ago
  I think the main reason an LSP hasn't been implemented for lisp is that nobody that has the skills to make one has any use for one. Exactly this. LSP is inferior to Slime and Sly and therefore next to useless to Lispers.
capitaomorte1 8y ago
I'm Sly's author. There is CL specific functionality, most notably an inspector, a debugger, and a REPL that are not very well covered by LSP right now. That said: 1. I've heard of an experimental microsof-sponsored DAP (Debugger Adpater Protocol) which is similar to LSP and uses some of its underlying transport mechanics. 2. I have another Emacs extension, Eglot (http://github.com/joaotavora/eglot http://github.com/joaotavora/eglot) for LSP. It follows roughly the same implementation patterns as Sly, so if you like one you might like to try the other.

TheCraiggers 8y ago

I've been a vi user for all of my Linux computing life. Watching the gifs in this repo put me in the shoes of coworkers watching me type in arcane symbols in vi to do 'magic'. I feel like I should give emacs a download and try to wrap my brain around it, if for no other reason than to be more well-rounded.