News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What debugging ought to feel like (video).

Re:What debugging ought to feel like (video) by goof on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @10:57PM (#985254)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What debugging ought to feel like (video) by thomas11 on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @04:04AM (#985569)
Scheme 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/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What debugging ought to feel like (video) by nearestneighbor on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @11:02PM (#985267)
People 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_cho...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What debugging ought to feel like (video) by jrockway on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @11:11PM (#985284)
Yeah, 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What debugging ought to feel like (video) by lg on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @11:19PM (#985295)
yeah, 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.
[ Parent | on HN ]