bradb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| Rob Warnock wrote:
| > Due to personal ergonomics issues, I've found myself unable to make
| > the transition from Vi to Emacs [yes, I've tried several times!],
| > and thus to Emacs+SLIME. So what? Big deal. It doesn't seem to have
| > impaired me in any way that *I* can see from using Common Lisp to
| I don't know if you are interested/aware of this, but there is a CL
| Gardeners project that aims to replicate the Slime environment in Vim,
| using the existing Swank backend.
I was aware of it, but thanks for the update anyway. I've dabbled
with a similar approach, myself, except using "nvi-1.79" as the
editor [it also supports embedding "interpreters" (Tcl and Perl
example bindings were included in the distribution), and I prefer
it to Vim], with a very small CL subset I wrote as the embedded
interpreter. However, I've also looked at "inverting" the model,
and simply using Vi as a backend display & editing engine, with
the "editor" being a full-on CL such as CMUCL. That is, more like
the LTk model, with Vi being the "backend" on on the other side
of a socket. I'm not sure yet which encapsulation will work best.
| So far we have embedded ECL in Vim and now we're working on writing
| Lisp code to handle the frontend. If you're interested you can find
| more details here http://wiki.alu.org/Perl_interface_to_SLIME.
Cool! Looks promising.
So much for the "aware" half of your "interested/aware" question;
now the "interested" part. Thanks, but not really, at least not
right now. For what I use CL for [mainly user-mode debugging of
hardware(!), plus a few sizeable web apps, and a mess of tiny
"shell scripts"], my current troglodytic development style suffices
quite handily. But maybe someday... ;-} ;-}
Rob Warnock <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607