Pretty Lisp
pretty-lisp.org
Pretty Lisp
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: Pretty Lisp
#2I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. Considering how sophisticated we think we are, how the hell are we still using tools like emacs, or even VS on a daily basis?
We should be indistinguishable from magic by now. This is a (small) step in the right direction.
Can we please live in the future already?
Re: Pretty Lisp
#3I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. Considering how sophisticated we think we are, how the hell are we still using tools like emacs, or even VS on a daily basis? We should be indistinguishable from magic by now. This is a (small) step in the right direction. Can we please live in the future already?
Seconded. I made some designs for a graphical IDE like this years ago, but only on paper. I'm very happy to see someone else has done the hard work for me! I hope they'll support other languages too.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#4This graphical representation of code structure seems reminiscent of http://scratch.mit.edu/
Re: Pretty Lisp
#5I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. Considering how sophisticated we think we are, how the hell are we still using tools like emacs, or even VS on a daily basis? We should be indistinguishable from magic by now. This is a (small) step in the right direction. Can we please live in the future already?
Emacs is already indistinguishable from magic :).
Seriously though, I actually prefer working with text, even here.
Also, I think this could be improved by making "meta" symbols like defun into different shapes rather than just including them as words. So a definition would look like a different box than a normal statement. Probably the same for &optional. Of course, this wouldn't work for user-defined macros or functions, but it would be nice if just for the standard ones.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#6This is real neat, but expecting programmers to make such a large jump so quickly is a bit unrealistic.
My best suggestion is to integrate this well with programers existing editors, open a socket from an Emacs instance and use this as visualization. You will get much better traction that way.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#7I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. Considering how sophisticated we think we are, how the hell are we still using tools like emacs, or even VS on a daily basis? We should be indistinguishable from magic by now. This is a (small) step in the right direction. Can we please live in the future already?
Emacs is already indistinguishable from magic :). Seriously though, I actually prefer working with text, even here. Also, I think this could be improved by making "meta" symbols like defun into different shapes rather than just including them as words. So a definition would look like a different box than a normal statement. Probably the same for &optional. Of course, this wouldn't work for user-defined macros or func…
Yes, not having that feature is a bit perplexing, I already have emacs do something similar with font-lock. Among others, lambda gets replaced with λ.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#8Something I'd be curious to hear from the pretty lisp designers: what advantages do you feel this offers over an Emacs which just highlights the symbol of interest or region between the matched parens for a particular code block?
By way of context, I was a test subject for a perhaps related project called Code Bubbles http://www.andrewbragdon.com/codebubbles_site.asp a while ago. Since it was for Java, a language which is comparatively verbose and I often have difficulty getting decent code density with, this new IDE interaction was truly novel and I found often useful.
I test drove the Pretty Lisp Demo and felt myself wanting for code density in a language where I don't typically have those issues. It was just too hard to fit a useful quantity of code in a screen.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#9Looking sweet. The future is in structural editors. The client-server separation is a nice bonus.
Unfortunately this is running up against the UI problem. How do you make this intuitive and powerful? A lot of hard work on usability is needed to get up to par with text editors. Very glad to see it being tackled.
Re: Pretty Lisp
#10I've been wanting this sort of thing for ages. Considering how sophisticated we think we are, how the hell are we still using tools like emacs, or even VS on a daily basis? We should be indistinguishable from magic by now. This is a (small) step in the right direction. Can we please live in the future already?
Because Emacs (and Vim, but when talking LISP, especially Emacs) is already magic. The visualization proposed is nifty, but it's hard to beat Emacs for any code editing, let alone for LISP.
Also, check this out: http://www.foldr.org/~michaelw/emacs/mwe-color-box.el (you can see a screenie in http://www.foldr.org/~michaelw/emacs/color-box.png)
