For those of us still stuck in the Dark Ages, I have patched Light Table so it can run on OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard). You can download it here: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/lighttable/LightTable0.4....
Light Table 0.4 released
91–100 of 193 posts
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#92This editor has reached parity with Sublime Text in my workflow for these reasons: 1.) Vim bindings (less impressive accomplishment but necessary for me); 2.) fuzzy matching for files, commands, and settings (this concept really wins); 3.) having a browser as a tab(!, it makes working full screen a joy); 4.) object eval(!); 5.) and EXCELLENT autocomplete -- even in Coffeescript -- most likely a product of the eval st…
Can you elaborate a little on how Coffeescript works in your setup? I was thinking of trying 0.4 out but I wasn't sure how exactly that language (which I use daily) might fit in.
It was plug-and-play! :D Here's a screenshot of it just working: http://www.fixpunk.com/notes/?attachment_id=78 My setup is nothing elaborate: I have set watch commands on my coffee directories and work with a node server running.
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate a little on how Coffeescript works in your setup? I was thinking of trying 0.4 out but I wasn't sure how exactly that language (which I use daily) might fit in.
It was plug-and-play! :D Here's a screenshot of it just working: http://www.fixpunk.com/notes/?attachment_id=78 My setup is nothing elaborate: I have set watch commands on my coffee directories and work with a node server running.
Awesome! I'm trying to visualize how some of the features from the Javascript video in OPs post (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtXpOD6jFls) would work. Are you using it as a straight editor or are you able to take advantage of the killer LightTable features in conjunction with Coffeescript (perhaps the new source-maps stuff takes care of it)?
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was actually suggesting that I can't believe people still use CL when Clojure exists... I await my lynching. :D
Well, since you threw that out there... ...I can't believe that people use Clojure-the-language over CL-the-language. It seems to have no reason to exist except as a "I hate parens" Lisp-1. The interesting parts of Clojure (i.e., the sequence abstraction design) are replicatable in CL as a library. Extant issues (e.g., cl's map not mapping over vectors)* can be abstracted over with other tools. While the JVM interop…
You're dangerously close to trolling, but I'll comment anyway.
> a "I hate parens" Lisp-1
Clojure's minimal syntax is, in my opinion, a gigantic improvement over Common Lisp. And I say this as a person who quite likes parens. I feel similarly about Lisp-1s, but that is well trotted territory: Lisp-1s have won.
Parens are overloaded in traditional Lisps for both invocation and grouping. The introduction of vectors with square brackets makes a lot of code a great deal more readable at virtually zero cost: It's still homoiconic. Similarly, the inclusion of curly braces for maps is wonderful, as it makes maps a lot more common in Clojure than they would otherwise be in CL, which is a good thing for most business logic.
> replicatable in CL as a library
Defaults matter. A lot. Presence in a library is insufficient. The fact that seqs et al are in core means that 100% of Clojure libraries use those abstractions. That's a big deal.
> I don't understand why the libraries and macros to create similarly compelling interop over ABCL weren't developed instead
Rich discussed this on the CL mailing lists long before Clojure or even his first attempt, dotLisp, ever existed. See [1] and [2]. In short, interop needs to be planned for at the lowest levels to make it pleasant to use and efficient to execute. And it's not just JVM interop: Clojure was designed for $SOME_HOST interop, so ClojureScript interops as nicely with JavaScript as Clojure does with the JVM. CL would have two different libraries with two different ideas of interop for two different host platforms.
> I don't know why Clojure was created as a new language
I think you have a different definition of the word "language" than I do. Look at PG's Arc. It's built on a scheme implementation. It's not so much a new language by your definition as it is a set of scheme libraries. But that's what a language is: A common base vocabulary encoded with a well known set of syntax and semantics rules. Clojure could be implemented (quite trivially, thanks to the aforementioned careful hosting design) as a set of libraries to CL, but it would still be a new language.
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/3-X76dTw8dI/I... [2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/3-X76dTw8dI/s...
Snippet from [2]:
If one were starting from scratch,
and supplied a platform like .NET, would one define Lisp the way CL is
defined?
I would hope the answer is 'most definitely not'. For instance, .NET
provides for numbers, characters, strings, arrays, hashtables, exceptions,
namespaces, files, streams, user-defined types, a type hierarchy and
inheritance, I/O, object creation and initialization, reflection etc. Should
a language define its own incompatible versions of these things in such an
environment?Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Bluntly, I don't know why Clojure was created as a new language instead of an advanced library over Common Lisp I think you basically answered your own question :) >JVM interop is compelling
But the thing is, Armed Bear Common Lisp (ABCL) already offers JVM interop. If someone sat down and really massaged it, the currently clunky interop there could be just as shiny as Clojure.
Rich Hickey's previous projects to clojure were all about LispJVM interop (see http://foil.sourceforge.net/, but there is at least one other) -- so I think he found limitations to what you can do.
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#96For those of us still stuck in the Dark Ages, I have patched Light Table so it can run on OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard). You can download it here: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/lighttable/LightTable0.4....
Thanks Zach, much appreciated.
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#97This looks really awesome; looks like Hotswap for the JVM.
I wonder how they handle updating anonymous function references--in the JVM, everything ends up being a class name (e.g. Foo$1 whatever), so even "anonymous" classes technically have an identifier to say "here's the new code". I wonder what that is for Light Table/the V8 VM.
I'd love to see this hotswap behavior built into all JS wire/debugger protocols. Maybe a W3C spec?
Light table is really awesome, and really driving the bleeding edge, but debugging/inspecting/hotswapping seems like something other editors could do as well.
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#98I am using OSX 10.8.3, and when I open the lighttable app, i see the lighttable logo/text and then it closes/crashes. Anyone had any similar issue? any know fix?
EDIT: Fix - sudo rm -Rf ~/.lighttable/
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was plug-and-play! :D Here's a screenshot of it just working: http://www.fixpunk.com/notes/?attachment_id=78 My setup is nothing elaborate: I have set watch commands on my coffee directories and work with a node server running.
Awesome! I'm trying to visualize how some of the features from the Javascript video in OPs post ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtXpOD6jFls ) would work. Are you using it as a straight editor or are you able to take advantage of the killer LightTable features in conjunction with Coffeescript (perhaps the new source-maps stuff takes care of it)?
Yeah, I haven't seen the realtime eval work in Coffeescript - I have to save the file and refresh the browser. That said--the awareness of the workspace environment really blew me away and pays off in tab completion.
Re: Light Table 0.4 released
#100How is it, if compared to IPython Notebook? Anyone familiar with both Light Table and IPython tried it yet?
[I'm Light Table backer, just want to know, if it is time yet to try it out... ;) ]