Not Lisp again (2009)

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by dTal on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @01:28PM (#14258004)

To any lisp enthusiasts who wonder why the language family isn't more popular: this is 99% of why. You have to use an editor where "copy" is called "Kill-ring-save" is invoked with "Meta-w". Any attempt to use any other tool will be met with incredulous responses to "just use Emacs".

It's such a shame because the development environment for Lisp could be so much better than other languages. It could be mindblowingly futuristic, instead of mindblowingly archaic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by abustamam on Thursday May 04, 2017 @08:38PM (#14270241)

I've just started using Clojure (another Lisp) and I use IntelliJ IDEa with the Cursive plug-in, with par-infer to deal with the parens.

It works like a charm. I can have a REPL and my code right in front of me, I can cmd-down to go to a function definition, and it's overall a very pleasant developer experience.

Now, I did experiment with Emacs, so I do understand what you're talking about -- kill-ring-save and the related key bindings made zero sense to me, and I was having trouble doing things I'd do easily in IntelliJ.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by lispm on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @02:04PM (#14258403)

> You have to use an editor where "copy" is called "Kill-ring-save" is invoked with "Meta-w"

You are misinformed. I'm using a GNU Emacs (-> Aquamacs) on the Mac and cut/paste/copy are invoked with the usual command keys. But usually I use the LispWorks editor, which is also in the Emacs family, and even there cut/copy/paste is the usual command sequence... Both editors are built with excellent Lisp support. One is written in C + Emacs Lisp and the other one in Common Lisp.

> mindblowingly archaic

You haven't even understood the old part, how would you be able to deal with the futuristic part?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by fao_ on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @03:23PM (#14310872)

> You haven't even understood the old part, how would you be able to deal with the futuristic part?

"You haven't used a PDP-10, how would you be able to deal with a smartphone?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by lispm on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @04:50PM (#14311589)

He didn't talk about old technology like 'smartphones', which existed as products (Nokia Communicator, ...) 20 years ago, but claimed that much better 'futuristic' IDEs for Lisp are possible, though what he claims may currently only exist in his imagination...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by sigjuice on Thursday May 04, 2017 @11:06AM (#14265330)

Any large piece of software will have its own terminology (car, cdr, frame, window, buffer, yank, kill, meta, ...). It is a shame that people would rather fixate on these superficial things instead of the minimal effort to get familiarized.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by kazinator on Wednesday May 03, 2017 @07:48PM (#14261271)

I've been programming in Lisp for 17 years now. I've always done it in Vim.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Not Lisp again (2009) by lispm on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @04:52PM (#14311604)

my sincerest condolences

[ Parent | on HN ]