5 ms·

> text-editing tasks than emacs/vim + tree-sitter If you like mediocrity, sure. That's what so many have OK'd, and that's fine, not everybody has to care about

> text-editing tasks than emacs/vim + tree-sitter If you like mediocrity, sure. That's what so many have OK'd, and that's fine, not everybody has to care about tools. And you are right for being sceptical: it's only natural, I would be too if I saw what I wrote without knowing what it was. As an Emacs user, I could be dismissive of new efforts, because, you know, emacs is enough and all. And I have said this a few times in the comments, but I am far from tired: the point of structural editing is not just editing. If you have time, take a look at Alchemy and what I want to do in it: https://project-mage.org/the-power-of-structure#AlchemyCL https://project-mage.org/the-power-of-structure#AlchemyCL Slime for lisp didn't do it for me. My thoughts on tree-sitter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34375137#34379449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34375137#34379449 > org is unmatched Yeah, but is it even good? I am using it myself, have been for many years. It doesn't bring me joy to say this: but it's not enough either. Far from it. Miles, and galaxies away from it. It could be so much better (the experience of note-taking and computational notebooks). > an adept of a language which is since decades more known for rants about programming than for delivering amazing software for end-users Look, all the rest of the languages didn't deliver it for me either (and for the computing industry at large, even though many people would prefer not to think about it). Computer industry is very young. Very young. I get the skepticism, but just think of it! Emacs kind of did deliver, to a point, for some time -- and that's written in lisp. One of the longest-living pieces of software. Or are you saying that Common Lisp itself is a problem? I mean, it's was simply the most practical choice on my part. I don't consider myself an adept, I don't consider CL perfect, but it's suitable for what I want to do.

lycopodiopsida 4y ago
For a text editor mediocricity is fine. It has to solve many tasks for many people. It has to be shown that structural editing makes an editor simpler, faster and in suited for a broader range of tasks. Until then, text is the king. > Yeah, but is it even good? Yes, it is. Is the only solution which was able to replace several outlines + highly specialized solutions like OmniFocus for me. And that, being a simple text outliner. It has no point to compare it to some hypothetical solution which does not exist and may never exist at all. We need it here and now. > and that's written in lisp. It may be more of an artefact of the time when emacs was created than some intrinsic advantage of lisp in general. The way I see it, the advantage of emacs is that it is mostly written in the own script language. Would it be written in lua instead (a more common choice these days) not much would change as long as you can eval code on the fly. > Or are you saying that Common Lisp itself is a problem? I would not say that CL itself is a problem, but on the other side the lisp community likes to write essays about the perfect software in the sky but delivers mostly nothing. I cannot do otherwise than compare it rust, which is very young language compared to CL, but the community cranks out amazing and useful software on a weekly basis. So, yeah, while in theory nothing speaks against amazing software being written in CL (as in any other language apart from brainfuck, really) in praxis it raises a lot of red flags for me.
- some-mthfka 4y ago
  > For a text editor mediocricity is fine. No, not for the text editor, but may be for some users. If a tree falls, does it make a sound? After all, maybe you are just not a power user and don't have the same frame of reference that power users have. > It has to be shown that structural editing makes an editor simpler, faster and in suited for a broader range of tasks. Until then, text is the king. Text might be the king until then, yes, but so is C++ and the children running with AKs in Africa. Doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. To me, I have argued extensively, that yes, structural can be absolutely simpler and faster and more versatile. Without a question. > I would not say that CL itself is a problem, but on the other side the lisp community likes to write essays about the perfect software in the sky but delivers mostly nothing. I am sorry, but I am not a part of that generation, if there's one. Yes, I can see how strange it is to not see what's claimed to be a very powerful language overtake the world. I agree on that, it's a bit mysterious. But some things just take time, I think. For the people to get accustomed to it; to go through some pain first, perhaps. Look, the only reason I am using CL is because it's an image-based language. That's simply crucial for interactivity. What are my other options? Smalltalk isn't bad at all, but I like macros too much, and the stability too. > in praxis it raises a lot of red flags for me. You have to account that the community hasn't been as nearly as large as for any other mainstream programming language. So, aren't your expectation, perhaps, a bit too high for the output of that community? It only has something like 3k packages online. Python has 420000+. Where is all the amazing python userland software that has lived for >5 years? And, you know, as small as it is, people have published some pretty cool libraries. Stable libraries. Sublanguages. Macro libraries. FWIW it's pretty cool as it is. A game was published two days ago: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1261430/Kandria/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1261430/Kandria/ Is it amazing? Haven't played it, don't know. Maybe? But what exactly is all that software you are expecting to begin with? I don't know the name for it, but there ought to be some cognitive bias that says: "things that don't happen, can't, and won't". Of course, I get it. I would be sceptical too. Maybe even very sceptical. But there's no other way to deal with sceptisism other than to analyze what's actually proposed, and whether it's doable. https://project-mage.org/why-common-lisp https://project-mage.org/why-common-lisp
  - 4y ago

lycopodiopsida 4y ago

For a text editor mediocricity is fine. It has to solve many tasks for many people. It has to be shown that structural editing makes an editor simpler, faster and in suited for a broader range of tasks. Until then, text is the king. > Yeah, but is it even good? Yes, it is. Is the only solution which was able to replace several outlines + highly specialized solutions like OmniFocus for me. And that, being a simple text outliner. It has no point to compare it to some hypothetical solution which does not exist and may never exist at all. We need it here and now. > and that's written in lisp. It may be more of an artefact of the time when emacs was created than some intrinsic advantage of lisp in general. The way I see it, the advantage of emacs is that it is mostly written in the own script language. Would it be written in lua instead (a more common choice these days) not much would change as long as you can eval code on the fly. > Or are you saying that Common Lisp itself is a problem? I would not say that CL itself is a problem, but on the other side the lisp community likes to write essays about the perfect software in the sky but delivers mostly nothing. I cannot do otherwise than compare it rust, which is very young language compared to CL, but the community cranks out amazing and useful software on a weekly basis. So, yeah, while in theory nothing speaks against amazing software being written in CL (as in any other language apart from brainfuck, really) in praxis it raises a lot of red flags for me.

some-mthfka 4y ago
> For a text editor mediocricity is fine. No, not for the text editor, but may be for some users. If a tree falls, does it make a sound? After all, maybe you are just not a power user and don't have the same frame of reference that power users have. > It has to be shown that structural editing makes an editor simpler, faster and in suited for a broader range of tasks. Until then, text is the king. Text might be the king until then, yes, but so is C++ and the children running with AKs in Africa. Doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. To me, I have argued extensively, that yes, structural can be absolutely simpler and faster and more versatile. Without a question. > I would not say that CL itself is a problem, but on the other side the lisp community likes to write essays about the perfect software in the sky but delivers mostly nothing. I am sorry, but I am not a part of that generation, if there's one. Yes, I can see how strange it is to not see what's claimed to be a very powerful language overtake the world. I agree on that, it's a bit mysterious. But some things just take time, I think. For the people to get accustomed to it; to go through some pain first, perhaps. Look, the only reason I am using CL is because it's an image-based language. That's simply crucial for interactivity. What are my other options? Smalltalk isn't bad at all, but I like macros too much, and the stability too. > in praxis it raises a lot of red flags for me. You have to account that the community hasn't been as nearly as large as for any other mainstream programming language. So, aren't your expectation, perhaps, a bit too high for the output of that community? It only has something like 3k packages online. Python has 420000+. Where is all the amazing python userland software that has lived for >5 years? And, you know, as small as it is, people have published some pretty cool libraries. Stable libraries. Sublanguages. Macro libraries. FWIW it's pretty cool as it is. A game was published two days ago: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1261430/Kandria/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1261430/Kandria/ Is it amazing? Haven't played it, don't know. Maybe? But what exactly is all that software you are expecting to begin with? I don't know the name for it, but there ought to be some cognitive bias that says: "things that don't happen, can't, and won't". Of course, I get it. I would be sceptical too. Maybe even very sceptical. But there's no other way to deal with sceptisism other than to analyze what's actually proposed, and whether it's doable. https://project-mage.org/why-common-lisp https://project-mage.org/why-common-lisp
- 4y ago