Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
1–10 of 222 posts
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#2Don't we have various LISP editors that are basically just that?
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#3Emacs has ParEdit minor mode which is a general-purpose tree editor.
https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ParEdit
edit: paredit demos:
Productive Emacs: Paredit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1WBsI3gdDE
Emacs Rocks! Episode 14: Paredit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6h5dFyyUX0
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#4I think we don't have a general-purpose tree editor for two reasons:
1. Nobody knows what it should look like.
2. Nobody knows how it should work.
I fear this article has left me as much in the dark on these points as I was before I read it. Perhaps someone else here will find something in it I missed.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#5Blasphemy: All xml editors are General Purpose Tree Editors
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#6I think we don't have a general-purpose tree editor for two reasons: 1. Nobody knows what it should look like. 2. Nobody knows how it should work. I fear this article has left me as much in the dark on these points as I was before I read it. Perhaps someone else here will find something in it I missed.
FWIW the editor in Chromium's and Firefox's developer tools are pretty good. I'd really like to see something like that as a standalone tool for both trees and XML and see how far it can be taken.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#7Pretty much any code editor with a jump to source, is a user friendly graph editor. And with refactoring tools, a good debugger and compiler I can't see what is missing
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#8I think we don't have a general-purpose tree editor for two reasons: 1. Nobody knows what it should look like. 2. Nobody knows how it should work. I fear this article has left me as much in the dark on these points as I was before I read it. Perhaps someone else here will find something in it I missed.
FWIW the editor in Chromium's and Firefox's developer tools are pretty good. I'd really like to see something like that as a standalone tool for both trees and XML and see how far it can be taken.
The inspector? I've seen and worked with similar tools for XML, too, though not recently. They're very good for small, constrained hand-editing, but I find them to scale extremely poorly.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#9This reminded me of Leslie Lamport's (of LaTeX fame) paper "How to write a 21st century proof" [0], where he argues that we should explicitly structure proofs as trees.
Re: Why Don't We Have a General-Purpose Tree Editor? (2014)
#10Emacs has ParEdit minor mode which is a general-purpose tree editor. https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/ParEdit edit: paredit demos: Productive Emacs: Paredit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1WBsI3gdDE Emacs Rocks! Episode 14: Paredit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6h5dFyyUX0
Maybe link to the Emacs Rocks demo in future - just a thought. I share it because I've known about paredit for years and just kind of gone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and not bothered - but seeing that demo has sold me on the idea in a super big way, to the extent where it's going to impair my productivity today, or would if we weren't in a post-crunch breather.
By comparison, the Emacs Wiki article is a poor introduction, because introduction is not its purpose; it's there to collect resources for people who already use paredit, and a good introduction answers the question of why someonr would want to start.
That said, thanks so much for posting about it here! I'm really looking forward to learning it today.