Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's just use Emacs

beastwithin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#91

Post by parfe »

technomancy wrote: post #84
parfe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but now you're not following the instructions provided by swank clojure which says to use marmalade (which is an elpa extension/replacement/clone/additional repository?) The clojure-mode available through elpa ( clojure-mode 1.7.x) is not new enough to deal with swank-clojure which needs 1.9.x (specifically I was after M-x clojure-jack-in) Plus, the elpa instructions don't include emacs23 because it allegedly com…

package.el is included in Emacs 24, not 23. Once that has had a stable release, this will become a lot easier. In the mean time, the link to package.el for Emacs 23 is right at the top of marmalade-repo.org: http://bit.ly/pkg-el23

Thanks for your clojure work. I'm using a lot of your stuff and I am grateful you take the time to write and release it.

"In the mean time, the link to package.el for Emacs 23 is right at the top of marmalade-repo.org: http://bit.ly/pkg-el23

You know that, but nothing on the page indicates it. In fact, that page leads me to believe it is the same version as tromey.com hosts. It isn't made clear that marmalade is a fork rather than an additional repository.

Plus that package.el does not integrate (or include instructions on how to integrate) with Emacs the same way the one from tromey.com does when you run the code on http://tromey.com/elpa/install.html

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#93

Post by GrooveStomp »

technomancy wrote: post #86
GrooveStomp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say that I've run into this exact issue, or even exactly what the issues have been that I've run into with Emacs, but I know I've spent many hours reading instructions, following tutorials and generally just trying to get a basic emacs/lisp setup running. It's really difficult to do. I think I had a partially working Clojure setup, but then I tried to make it support Common Lisp in addition, and things comple…

> I think I had a partially working Clojure setup, but then I tried to make it support Common Lisp in addition, and things completely broke down. This is due to the SLIME developers' insistence on making everyone run from CVS trunk. I wish I were joking, but they really seem to have no interest in creating stable release packages, so I have to go in and try to make it work without their cooperation.

Interesting. For what it's worth, I plan to give Emacs another go pretty soon here, but I'll be sticking with Common Lisp. I'm kind of done my courting period with Clojure.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#94

Post by alnayyir »

eropple wrote: post #31
EdiX wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of modern IDEs provide features that are pretty close to magic, compared to what emacs sports. Which modern IDEs and what features? I have used eclipse for months before deciding I was better off with emacs with eclim-mode anyway to provide the only two features of eclipse I liked: the compiler and the ability to see the members of an object (occasionally).

I work on a 5GB source tree at work with a couple (or more? I haven't looked) thousand Java source files. After my last machine decided it would be a good time to crap out and I started over with a new OS X install, I tried working strictly with vim and emacs and our scripts (written by vim aficionados, it seems) to navigate around the codebase. It was like a root canal. If I was on fire. Seriously--I'm not an Eclips…

Don't use ctags, they're garbage.

--- Emacs user that uses a lot of "IDE esque" features

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#95

Post by aerique »

GrooveStomp wrote: post #93
technomancy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think I had a partially working Clojure setup, but then I tried to make it support Common Lisp in addition, and things completely broke down. This is due to the SLIME developers' insistence on making everyone run from CVS trunk. I wish I were joking, but they really seem to have no interest in creating stable release packages, so I have to go in and try to make it work without their cooperation.

Interesting. For what it's worth, I plan to give Emacs another go pretty soon here, but I'll be sticking with Common Lisp. I'm kind of done my courting period with Clojure.

Emacs + Slime for CL should be a piece of cake as long as you don't insist on using your distribution's packages. Mail me (see profile) when you run into any problems and I'll help you out.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#96

Post by EdiX »

eropple wrote: post #44
EdiX wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I work on a 5GB source tree at work with a couple (or more? I haven't looked) thousand Java source files. the linux kernel is 14 million lines of code and the size of its source tree is 500MB, you are working on a source tree that is ten times the size of linux? 140M lines of code? In any case it can't be all 140M LoC in a couple thousand java files so something should be clarified. > I'm not an Eclipse fan by any…

No, it's not all code, but glorified shell script call-outs from vim, etc. have to walk the entire thing far too often for my liking. (Unless something has recently changed, tags files have to be rebuilt in their entirety after a svn up - Eclipse just reindexes the changes.) As for "not realizing what a good editor can do"--remind me how I get context-sensitive renaming or method extraction in emacs or vim? These fea…

> remind me how I get context-sensitive renaming

You don't but I did tell you that IDE do some things better.

> method extraction

After the third time eclipse crashed and deleted code while I was trying to do this I'm not really sure how you can get method extraction working in eclipse either.

> And can we lay this holier-than-thou claim about "good editors" to rest already? The idea that editors that don't require six fingers on each hand or a modal personality are "not good editors" is patently silly

Agree, but it's also silly to think that any editor is a good editor and the ones in IDEs are not.

> I grew out of that sort of thing when I was 15 or so

Talk about holier-than-thou...

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#97

Post by Goladus »

kennu wrote: post #3

There's something fishy about an emacs article that doesn't mention vim at all.

Why should an emacs article mention vim? The author probably isn't qualified to fairly compare them and so doesn't bother trying. The focus is also writing prose rather than coding or basic text-editing.

The differences between vim and emacs are so fundamental that once someone goes down the emacs path it's not uncommon to never turn back.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#98

Post by cema »

parfe wrote: post #20

I use Emacs for coding, wanderlust mail, rcirc and jabber-el. All which are provided as packages in the distros I run. I've been trying to get into clojure which entails installing clojure-mode, swank-clojure, leiningen (which brings the pain of maven) and slime. This is where emacs has always broken down for me. Once I step outside the distro provided packages I find broken tutorials, unspecific versions, and instru…

Regarding Clojure on Emacs, just use the up-to-date stuff by technomancy. The following is based on my notes from a recent talk by Phil Hagelberg at a Boston Clojure Meetup.

1. Download lein from https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/raw/stable/bin/lein

2. Launch lein (self-install) from the command line.

3. Run lein plugin install swank-clojure 1.3.0 on the command line.

4. When you first run swank, it may complain you do not have project.clj or something like that, because it expects to be launched form inside a project directory. You may create a dummy project directory (cd; lein new dummy; cd dummy).

You need to run the above steps once, to install. Run the following at the beginning of a clojure session:

5. Run lein swank on the command line.

6. In emacs, run slime-connect (with the default parameters, most likely).

In case I have garbled the above, I am sure someone will correct me. Although I did it both on Windows and MacOs and it worked. (On Windows, I use bash shell form the MinGW project, but I see no reason for the standard Windows shell not to work.)

Separately, you may want to install clojure-mode from the same repository.

Happy hacking!

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#99

Post by aerique »

shubble wrote: post #81
urlwolf wrote: post #62

For those who prefer a language with namespaces (python) sublime editor is a good modern alternative.

I've been using emacs for a few months now (it's surprisingly good), and am starting to run into wanting to do little modifications. Speaking as a non-lisper, I really wish a rewrite existed in a more modern language. I don't wanna start an argument about lisp here but there is a reason people don't use it for major developments, and it's not the performance. But it would be unfair not to point out that you can exten…

First of all, various members of the Lisp family are used for major developments.

Secondly, rewriting Emacs would be a major undertaking and which modern language would it be? My choice would be Common Lisp, for other developers it would be Clojure, Haskell, Python, Ruby, etc. Whatever choice it would be, you'd lose developers who would rather see Emacs rewritten in one of the other languages. Even worse they might spawn forks in their own favourite languages.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#100

Post by ajross »

raganwald wrote: post #76
ajross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little unfair. Programming languages are tools for your head: you're always thinking when using them. That means that the impedance mismatch of "switching" between languages is fairly low, and scales with the problem. So pick the tool for the job, and don't sweat the simple stuff. Editors are tools for your fingers. There are huge penalties to being good with an editor if you are forced to use a diff…

What's unfair? That the arguments made by emacs users with respect to less powerful editors resemble the arguments made by Lisp users with respect to less powerful programming languages? I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound. You said: "There are huge benefits available if you give up all your existing editing tools and spend some time (and yeah, it can…

I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound.

Uh, no. You're making an editorial point that they both seem equally silly, you just aren't saying that. If your only purpose to posting was a bland linguistic analogy with no bearing on the subject being discussed, then I withdraw my argument on the grounds that your post is unimaginably boring. :)

But to respond: the sentences differ in that one statement is truer than the other. "Hugs are good." and "Suffering is good." use the same language too, but you wouldn't use that as part of a sideways argument that huggers are insane, would you?

Post reply on HN