lisp is beautiful. The crown jewels of computer science. getting to spend time with it reminds you that programming can be fun (and profound) while you are being paid to work with some awful drudgery language solving some stupid problem. Being close to lisp, in this way, is like being at the same party as Audrey Hepburn. It reminds you of grace.
Joel Moses has been credited with coining the phrase in the 1970s APL is like a beautiful diamond - flawless, beautifully symmetrical. But you can't add anything to it. If you try to glue on another diamond, you don't get a bigger diamond. Lisp is like a ball of mud. Add more and it's still a ball of mud - it still looks like Lisp.
Why GNU Emacs?
291–300 of 317 posts
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence why I love the idea of REPL as shell as used in the Xerox PARC and ETHZ OSes. Only Powershell comes closer to how this was used.
Every (Unix/terminal) shell is a Read-Eval-Print-Loop. The difference is the data structure which is passed around. Is it bytes, Cons, or objects?
What do you do when you have to debug a pipeline? You do not have direct access to the data that flows, you need special tools to examine core dumps, and you have to have had enabled saving the dumps beforehand, you need to verify that the command syntax is correct, you have to understand what each program emit, and make sure you filter out all irrelevant data like logging etc., you don't know which part of the pipeline failed, where, you don't know if it is a wrong parameter or the program has a bug. And in order to fix bugs in programs that make up the pipeline, you have to know in whatever language the buggy one was implemented:
) () Response: (\d{3}) (\w+)#\1,\2,\3,\4#' | python create_report.py --output-to latex > /tmp/report.tex && latex /tmp/report.tex && dvi2pdf /tmp/report.tex && [ -f /tmp/report.pdf ] && sh /home/gkya/utils/mail_report.sh --report /tmp/report.pdf
In this command line at least six different languages are in use. I just made it up, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#293Many Emacs advocates fall for the trap of apologizing for why Emacs is not Unixy, as though it were some sort of defect. They should celebrate the fact that Emacs doesn't come from the Unix tradition of small, composable tools and "doing only one thing and doing it well". It is rooted in the ambitious work of the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, the LISP programming language, and the single user MIT Lisp Machine that…
Unix has a big flaw: through the pipes pass random data. It's up to the receivers to interpret it. Lisp gives you the possibility to easily structure your data and pass it around, plus the ability to pass programs around. Other than this, the unix way and the lisp way are nearly parallel, though in lisp "command line utility" is called a "procedure".
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joel Moses has been credited with coining the phrase in the 1970s APL is like a beautiful diamond - flawless, beautifully symmetrical. But you can't add anything to it. If you try to glue on another diamond, you don't get a bigger diamond. Lisp is like a ball of mud. Add more and it's still a ball of mud - it still looks like Lisp.
Mud can be shaped in a large number of useful and beautiful things.
> Writing a macro that understands forks and hooks is an exercise for a beginner – if the operators covered are strictly monadic and/or dyadic as are those in J. However in Lisp all those optional auxiliary and keyword arguments immensely complicate matters. In order to make it operational within a month or so of effort a tacit macro could be implemented to work just on a subset of Lisp operators.
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#295Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#296I switched to emacs a year ago and I love it. I feel a lot more productive when everything I need is in single window. However, just recently, I started feeling what used to be minor RSI to be a major discomfort. There are days where I can't type at all. I don't know if emacs' key bindings is mainly to blame here, but it seems like it. evil-mode have been recommended to me but I'm hesitant because I never liked vim's…
> I never liked vim's key bindings. How... dare you? Did you really try? What's wrong with them? I'm finding vi mighty fine. I switched my shells to vi mode and hate going back. Maybe you need to try Dvorak, I have to admit I've never used vi on QWERTY :)
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#297I switched to emacs a year ago and I love it. I feel a lot more productive when everything I need is in single window. However, just recently, I started feeling what used to be minor RSI to be a major discomfort. There are days where I can't type at all. I don't know if emacs' key bindings is mainly to blame here, but it seems like it. evil-mode have been recommended to me but I'm hesitant because I never liked vim's…
I recommend God mode. On my Thinkpad X200S I bind the mode switcher key to the right mouse button, which is easily reached by the right thumb. With God mode you don't have to relearn key bindings, you just no longer need to hit Control and Alt. https://github.com/chrisdone/god-mode
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#298Emacs is a fine editor to use until you write your own. It's the only way to make your primary interactive tool work exactly the way that you think it should.
That's a hefty endeavor. Care to share more about your experience writing your own?
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a hefty endeavor. Care to share more about your experience writing your own?
I think pklausler means that, out of the box, emacs is decent but, over time, you slowly mold it into something that is more truly yours. That's been my nearly twenty year experience with emacs.
Re: Why GNU Emacs?
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would instantly disregard anyone who says this. Just run it in daemon mode and connect with emacsclient.
I used to do that. Then I got a new job that requires Windows 7 and emacs can't start in daemon mode. :(