5 ms·
I had a brief fling with Common Lisp a few years ago and I definitely miss Slime. I wish other language implementations would provide a networked repl and tight
by goof 17y ago
I had a brief fling with Common Lisp a few years ago and I definitely miss Slime. I wish other language implementations would provide a networked repl and tight emacs integration. Neither of the Schemes I use (plt, gambit) work with Slime and Clojure's Slime integration had some annoying issues when I last checked about 6 months ago.
- nearestneighbor 17y agoPeople might tell you that it works "great" (I've heard this numerous times), but it turns out they mean it in a very limited sense: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aa9zf/why_i_chose_common_lisp_over_python_ruby_and/c0gmdw7 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aa9zf/why_i_cho...
- jrockway 17y agoYeah, I always suspected this. I never found any langauge other than Common Lisp to be very good with Slime. CL itself, however, tends to be excellent. I am writing a similar integration layer for Perl, but decided not to reuse the Swank protocol. The Emacs side is just not quite flexible enough.
- lg 17y agoyeah, M-. is broken, but at least C-M-x works. And ok, forget about calls-who, but that's pretty broken for me in CL anyway.
- thomas11 17y agoScheme people often use Quack. It has excellent support for looking up documentation, as well as the usual stuff like interacting with the Scheme interpreter. http://www.neilvandyke.org/quack/ http://www.neilvandyke.org/quack/