Re: Good Lisp editor for Win

192 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

philip....@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 4:53:25 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 9:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it. I am currently using Able which has a tclk editor and
> runs clisp which is integrated, it's good but limiting in the sense
> that I have to accept the version of clisp the developer has put into
> it and if there's a new clisp version I can't integrate it (or if i
> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?

You can run ABLE with any version of CLISP if you run from source.
There's fairly detailed instructions on the website for how to do
this. Perhaps Kenny's right: writing instruction manuals is a waste of
time!

ABLE also works with SBCL (on Linux at least, I've not tested on
Windows but you may be lucky).

--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 5:00:53 PM7/5/08
to
In article
<20295d6d-08b4-466c...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:

> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> bulky and "unix like",

Emacs is not really Unix-like. It is not coming from the Unix tradition.

> I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it. I am currently using Able which has a tclk editor and
> runs clisp which is integrated, it's good but limiting in the sense
> that I have to accept the version of clisp the developer has put into
> it and if there's a new clisp version I can't integrate it (or if i
> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?

The following commercial Lisp implementations have
an editor (and IDE) for Windows:

Corman Lisp, Allegro CL and LispWorks. Allegro CL and LispWorks
have no-cost versions that run under Windows and might
be sufficient to edit Lisp code.

For Allegro CL there is the Allegro CL 8.1 Free Express Edition.
I haven't used it, but it should include the IDE:

http://www.franz.com/downloads/allegrodownload.lhtml

Allegro CL Express Edition should be relatively complete,
with a heap size limit. Check out the license.


LispWorks has a personal edition, free of charge.
It is also useful to edit Lisp programs, but quits
every 5 hours...

http://www.lispworks.com/downloads/index.html


Corman Lisp is here:

http://www.cormanlisp.com/

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

John Thingstad

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 5:09:56 PM7/5/08
to
På Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:39:57 +0200, skrev Francogrex <fra...@grex.org>:

> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's

> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common


> lisp from it. I am currently using Able which has a tclk editor and
> runs clisp which is integrated, it's good but limiting in the sense
> that I have to accept the version of clisp the developer has put into
> it and if there's a new clisp version I can't integrate it (or if i
> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?

There is a eclipse plugin called cusp which is supposed to be pretty good.
http://www.eclipse.org/
http://bitfauna.com/projects/cusp/index.html

This is made to work with SBCL so you would have to tweak it to work with
clisp.
It uses the SWANK interface so I can't see why this should be difficult.
(SWANK is the Common Lisp end of SLIME, the Emacs mode for Lisp)

I use ECL Lisp shell sometimes. This is written against .NET using Edi's
RDNZL.
Nice features like intellisense, context sensitive help and syntax
highlighting.
Much lighter and less feature ritch than cusp.

--------------
John Thingstad

xah...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 6:00:41 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 1:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it. I am currently using Able which has a tclk editor and
> runs clisp which is integrated, it's good but limiting in the sense
> that I have to accept the version of clisp the developer has put into
> it and if there's a new clisp version I can't integrate it (or if i
> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?


You should give emacs another try.

First thing, is to disregard the fucking morons the comp.lang.lisp
regulars or emacs long-time users have to say about emacs. It is they,
fuck heads, that made emacs extremely hard to use and advocating ill-
conceived advices and practices that has become a norm.

Emacs is stuck in 1980's interface and terminologies. Its mode of
operation is many respects are very inefficient and painful. However,
it has very powerful redeeming qualities. Namely, the embedded lisp
language system, and customizability.

If you are on a Mac, you could try Aquamacs, which is emacs with
completely revamped interface so that it looks and feels like most
modern applications on OS X. Aquamacs is quite popular. Its problem is
that it's limited on a platform only less ~4% of market share.

You, on Windows, might try
http://www.ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html
I can't say much about it since i don't have Windows now and have not
tried it.
Its spirit is similar to Aquamacs, by making emacs conform to modern
user interface, for Windows.

In anycase, the emacs system allows youself to make quite flexible
changes. You might think of it as a text editor engine, where you can
build your own editor on top of it to the way you like.

For example, for me, i've spent several months in 2007 and designed a
ergonomic keyboard shortcuts that radically changed emacs keybindings
( http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html ).
The design is based on my 18 or so years of experience of using the
Dvorak keyboard layout and many macros ond key-remapping software on
Mac/Unix/Windows and my absurd interest in efficiency and fascination
with input devices.

Again, the one critical quality about emacs is its embedded lisp
language. If you are a programer, which you are, and especially if you
program in lisp, then emacs will be highly advantageous to you in the
long term, if you could just bear with its bulk of outdated user
interface and terminologies for several months.

Perhaps in risking of making it look like i'm simply trying to peddle
my writings, but i have written a tutorial on emacs and emacs lisp.
Please have a gander, and you can get some idea of emacs power, or at
least how i use it.

http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html
http://xahlee.org/emacs/elisp.html

Xah
http://xahlee.org/

Lars Rune Nøstdal

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 2:29:17 AM7/6/08
to
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> references to Emacs.

Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
environment.

> In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it.

Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
the first place or learn anything new in general.

It's not rocket science this stuff you know. You open files, type code,
evaluate code, split a window so you can do or view many things at the
same time, try code and stuff out in the REPL .. etc.

> Are there any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?

You mean besides Emacs? Not that I know of.

--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:03:06 AM7/6/08
to
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's

> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> lisp from it.

have you tried XEmacs? it's equipped with traditional Windows key bindings,
and feels almost like another editor on Windows. (I've used to a way how
select/copy/paste works on Windows, say in Visual Studio, so default
Emacs keybindings are pain for me, i understand why you hate it).

also XEmacs seems to be a bit nicer and most of stuff can be configured
via menu. (i can be wrong, but Emacs version i've seen look like
unfriendly old turd comparing to XEmacs). (on the bad side people
say XEmacs is somewhat less stable and some plugins do not work on it).

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:07:18 AM7/6/08
to
> You, on Windows, might try
> http://www.ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html
> I can't say much about it since i don't have Windows now and have not
> tried it.
> Its spirit is similar to Aquamacs, by making emacs conform to modern
> user interface, for Windows.

haven't tried it either, but i'm using XEmacs, and it works very
fine on Windows. (well, it works quite fine on Linux too, so
i'm using it both here and there).

Message has been deleted

Timofei Shatrov

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:14:13 AM7/7/08
to
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:03:06 +0300, "Alex Mizrahi" <alex.m...@gmail.com>
tried to confuse everyone with this message:

As far as I'm aware, GNU Emacs completely supersedes XEmacs on Windows as of
late. Here's Steve Yegge's post on this topic:

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/04/xemacs-is-dead-long-live-xemacs.html


--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|

Slobodan Blazeski

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:41:15 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <larsnost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > references to Emacs.
>
> Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> environment.
>
> >  In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > lisp from it.
>
> Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> the first place or learn anything new in general.
Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.

Lars Rune Nøstdal

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:48:33 AM7/7/08
to
On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 23:41 -0700, Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:29 am, Lars Rune Nøstdal <larsnost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 13:39 -0700, Francogrex wrote:
> > > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > > references to Emacs.
> >
> > Yes, because Emacs is a good editor, and with Slime it's a great Lisp
> > environment.
> >
> > > In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > > bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
> > > lisp from it.
> >
> > Ok, your problem. It's a simple editor. If you can't learn something
> > simple like Emacs I don't see how you're able to do any programming in
> > the first place or learn anything new in general.
> Tell that to Graham, he's using vi.

Yeah, so? I do think he's able to learn Emacs. He's not dumb, either.

--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
htpp://nostdal.org/

Slobodan Blazeski

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:17:45 AM7/7/08
to

What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
there is only one way to do it.

>
> --
> Lars Rune Nøstdal
> htpp://nostdal.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lars Rune Nøstdal

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:45:54 AM7/7/08
to

Ok, blah .. I don't understand what you're saying.

Do you have an opinion about this or not? What are you disagreeing with
here?

See, I think he's able to learn VI(M) also (in this case he already
knows it). This was the point.

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 10:56:12 AM7/7/08
to
> What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
> different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
> And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
> there is only one way to do it.

i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
an argument.
yes, i know that learning new keybindings can be hard, but
in emacs it's quite easy to reassign keybindings, or you can
get a package with pre-configured keybindings, like XEmacs
or Aquamacs.
if you can't spend 10 minutes configuring a text editor,
how will you cope with activity like programming at all?

as for democracy, i think Graham knows both Emacs and vi,
so he can choose what's better for him.

but if you don't know emacs, how do you know that something
will be better or worse? if people say Emacs is better,
they are probably have reason to do so.

newcomers are not in position to do choices until they'll
really know the matter (and thus stop being newcomers).

-- i'd like to learn lisp. but i don't like your
lisp editor, i want to use Java editor (Eclipse).
asdf seems weird to me, can't i use make or ant?

then it can end up:
-- i found that lisp syntax sucks, while language is ok.
here is what i propose: {here goes proposal to use
indentation like in Python or C-like syntax instead those
silly parentheses}

or it can end up like this:
-- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
with Java.

so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
of majority. only when you're sure you've got it
you can dive into experimentations. otherwise it's
easy to spoil learning.

philip....@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 11:27:12 AM7/7/08
to
On 7 Jul, 15:56, "Alex Mizrahi" <alex.mizr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
>   an argument.

Although I'm obviously not an emacs user, I do agree with most of what
you say here. However I am curious about this:

>   -- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory
> programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
> none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
> with Java.

Which Common Lisp editor forces this on you? That would definitely be
a bad thing...

--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/

Slobodan Blazeski

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:32:40 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 4:56 pm, "Alex Mizrahi" <alex.mizr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happened with Lisp is a language of democracy, we have a
> > different compilers, editors ides and libraries.
> > And we're happy to embrace that diversity instead of dictatorship of
> > there is only one way to do it.
>
> i think Lars just says that "i cannot learn emacs" is not
>   an argument.
I think he says that he don't WANT to learn emacs, there's a
difference. Pointing to a good tool is one thing(LW,ACL,ABLE,CUSP...),
saying that some tool (Emacs) is prerequisite for lisping is
completely another. Honestly I don't give a damn if he's using a
notepad, though it would be silly, or buy Lisp Machine and use a
zmacs. As long as it's fine for him I have nothing to say. People
already gave him the alternatives so he have to choose for himself.

You're overreacting.

>
> so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
> of majority.

And learn Java like everybody else

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:39:28 PM7/7/08
to
>> О©╫ -- your lisp sucks. you said it has exploratory

>> programming and some wonderful environment, but i've seen
>> none -- i just compile files and run them, as i was doing
>> with Java.

> Which Common Lisp editor forces this on you? That would definitely be
> a bad thing...

some people might want to stay with their favourite text editor
which has no support for lisp.

if i remember correctly, when i was first doing something with lisp,
there was no SLIME, i did not understood how to use Emacs ILISP
on a remote machine, so i opened REPL via ssh and was copying
functions from my editor (i was using some lisp-unaware editor
that time) into REPL.
perhaps that is even more painful than recompilation..
as i remember i did not have nice start up script, so to start
the session i had to type bunch of commands into REPL.

Alex Mizrahi

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 3:16:38 PM7/7/08
to
>> so, while learning, best thing is to follow advices
>> of majority.
> And learn Java like everybody else

no, i mean if you're learning lisp do it like lispers do.
if you are learning java, do so in a way typical to java programmers.

for example, even if you like Emacs most of all, it makes sense to
check Java IDE like IntelliJ IDEA, which has automatic refactoring
and stuff -- your Java programming won't be effective without it.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Stefan Scholl

unread,
Jul 9, 2008, 2:59:09 PM7/9/08
to
Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's

> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common

Emacs isn't even unix like.


--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/

philip....@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 9, 2008, 4:25:26 PM7/9/08
to
On Jul 9, 3:22 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:53 pm, philip.armit...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I take this occasion to make few comments/questions about able version
> 14. I think version 13 had better features like highlighting/colouring
> the known LISP macros and function in SEXP (in blue) now it's all
> black text.

That's strange: syntax coloring certainly hasn't been removed and is
working on my Linux and XP machines so something is definitely amiss
there.

> And I miss also the ctrl-F4 and ctrl-F5 keys that let you
> copy/evaluate only selected parts of a program into the REPL for
> evaluation.

That's a fair point. I've taken a (possibly ill-advised) approach to
making ABLE do what most users want which basically means whoever
shouts loudest tends to get heard! The problem with the evaluation
mode is that some people want single SEXPs to evaluate, some want the
whole outer form, some want to place the cursor inside the parens,
some after the closing paren while yet others want to be able to
select a portion of text with the mouse or cursor keys and submit
that. In an attempt to keep things simple, I've tried to just retain
one model.

> Also I can't seem to get the F1 to work properly which is
> to Lookup the symbol under the cursor in the Hyperspec. (All in
> windows XP)

Have you looked in the config.lisp file and checked that *web-browser*
is set to your preferred web browser? Be careful with pathnames that
contain spaces (the comment above this setting suggests a typical
pathname for Internet Explorer for example). I'm using this feature on
XP with Firefox.

--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/

Pascal J. Bourguignon

unread,
Jul 9, 2008, 4:48:57 PM7/9/08
to
Stefan Scholl <ste...@no-spoon.de> writes:

> Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
>> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
>> bulky and "unix like", I really do not want to use it to run common
>
> Emacs isn't even unix like.

Emacs is the antithesis of unix. Emacs is LispMachine-like.

mh is unix-like. The vi that was a bunch of scripts over ed was
unix-like. vim is too monolithic to really be unix-line.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.

Dan Weinreb

unread,
Jul 11, 2008, 6:09:21 AM7/11/08
to
On Jul 5, 5:00 pm, Rainer Joswig <jos...@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article
> <20295d6d-08b4-466c-93a5-526b54f33...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> > Hi, I'm looking for a good LISP editor (for windows), I use CLISP on
> > windows XP. I know this has been discussed before but all I found were
> > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it, it's
> > bulky and "unix like",
>
> Emacs is not really Unix-like. It is not coming from the Unix tradition.

Indeed, at the time Emacs was being developed, the Unix guys (e.g.
Bill Joy and friends at U.C. Berkeley) were developing "vi" to be
Unix's answer to Emacs. Emacs is from the tradition of ITS (MIT's
Incompatible Timesharing System -- that name is an intentional joke),
on which Richard Stallman did the original written-in-TECO Emacs.
After that were my Eine/Zwei/Zmacs versions in Lisp for the Lisp
machine, Bernie Greenberg's Multics Emacs (in Lisp also), and many
others culminating in Stallman's GNU Emacs.

Francogrex, you might want to try Emacs again with SLIME, which is a
very good Lisp development environment. But I know that some people
just don't like Emacs; to each his own.

Jacobite1607

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 9:46:10 AM7/14/08
to
On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:

> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,

I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.

> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there


> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?

For a while I tried Corman Lisp but when you try and create GUI's it
all falls apart UNLESS, you memorize Petzold's Win32 book cover to
cover. If GUI's aren't a concern for you try Corman.

I ended up purchasing Lispworks and it has everything you're looking
for except the free part. Very easy to create GUI's AND you can set it
up for Windows like keystrokes, copy, cut and paste, etc.

They have a personal edition that will allow you to try it, but if
your serious about programming, buying a commerical product is way
better than downloading some freeby.

Pascal J. Bourguignon

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 10:21:15 AM7/14/08
to
Jacobite1607 <Jacobi...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
>
>> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.

Sorry, you're wrong.

emacs has certain standard keystrokes that are second natural, and
then Smalltalk who copied from the same Lisp Machine as emacs went
away, and then MacOS who copied from Smalltalk went away from those,
and then MS-Window who copied from MacOS went even further away.

But the right way, the closest to the ancestral perfection represented
by Lisp Machines is emacs way. It's MS-Window that is awkward here.


>> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
>> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
>> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?
>
> For a while I tried Corman Lisp but when you try and create GUI's it
> all falls apart UNLESS, you memorize Petzold's Win32 book cover to
> cover. If GUI's aren't a concern for you try Corman.
>
> I ended up purchasing Lispworks and it has everything you're looking
> for except the free part. Very easy to create GUI's AND you can set it
> up for Windows like keystrokes, copy, cut and paste, etc.
>
> They have a personal edition that will allow you to try it, but if
> your serious about programming, buying a commerical product is way
> better than downloading some freeby.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!"

Thomas A. Russ

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 12:31:35 PM7/14/08
to
Jacobite1607 <Jacobi...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.

Hmmm. Interesting case of reverse causation.

Emacs was created in 1976
MSDOS was created in 1981
Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)

So, who went away from whom?

--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute

Joseph Iacobucci

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 7:56:04 AM7/15/08
to
"Jacobite1607" <Jacobi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55b6a3ad-3243-4085...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:

>I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
>because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
>natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.

cua mode might solve your problem?

--
Joseph Iacobucci
Email: gtg...@mail.gatecch.edu


Jacobite1607

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 9:26:25 AM7/15/08
to

Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong.
>

Ok, Emacs is closer to some founding fathers programming, but to
people who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then
Windows, Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to. So
while, "which came first" may be incorrect, my point still stands, for
some of us, the keystrokes seem like unnatural.

If you like Emacs fantastic, but that doesn't mean I or this guy has
to.

William

Jacobite1607

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 9:31:37 AM7/15/08
to
On Jul 15, 7:56 am, "Joseph Iacobucci" <gtg3...@mail.gatech.edu>
wrote:
> "Jacobite1607" <Jacobite1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

> cua mode might solve your problem?
>

Thanks, that's very interesting and it may help the original poster of
this thread.
It's certainly worth a try.

Tamas K Papp

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 9:55:18 AM7/15/08
to
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:26:25 -0700, Jacobite1607 wrote:

> Ok, Emacs is closer to some founding fathers programming, but to people
> who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then Windows,
> Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to. So while,

You make learning a new set of keystrokes sound like an insurmountable
obstacle. You only have to do it once, and then you can reap the
benefits of Emacs for the rest of your life. Not using an otherwise
excellent editor just because it has uses different keystrokes is quite a
luxury.

Tamas

Slobodan Blazeski

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 10:13:57 AM7/15/08
to
On Jul 14, 6:31 pm, t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:

> Jacobite1607 <Jacobite1...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> Hmmm.  Interesting case of reverse causation.
>
> Emacs was created in 1976
> MSDOS was created in 1981
> Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
>
> So, who went away from whom?
Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
windows decides what is standard and what's not.
People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
that power.

Evans Winner

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 10:56:06 AM7/15/08
to
Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> writes:

Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows
won the war,

Who cares?

windows decides what is standard and what's
not.

Who cares?

People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it
should mean undo on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be
thrashed by masses of people who are used to Ctrl-Z
meaning undo.

Who cares if they ``thrash'' something? If they don't like
it, let them go cry and use Notepad.exe.

People don't want t be corrected.

The rational ones do.

Sure your comments are valid and logical but humans
aren't logical.

Speak for yourself.

Matthias Buelow

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 11:40:17 AM7/15/08
to
Jacobite1607 wrote:

> but to
> people who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then
> Windows, Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to.

Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
proceeded through DOS to Unix, each platform with its own particular
user interface(s), keybindings, idioms etc. Just be a bit more flexible.

Jacobite1607

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 12:14:05 PM7/15/08
to
> Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
> proceeded through DOS to Unix, each platform with its own particular
> user interface(s), keybindings, idioms etc. Just be a bit more flexible.

When I was in school we had the old Teletype writer to a mainframe
where I played computer games, then I had a Commadore 64 and that is
what I started programming on when I was a teenager, then an Apple IIe
at work and then DOS and Windows.

Obviously this is like getting into the whole "which is better MAC or
PC discussion", people get so worked up over what is really nothing.
I'm sure emacs is a fine editor if you like it, I saw some neat
features in it. However, I prefer the Lispworks built in editor as it
works fine for me.

I think at this point this thread has exhausted it's usefullness.

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 1:06:46 PM7/15/08
to
In article
<065664f5-fb0b-46c5...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 14, 6:31 pm, t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > Jacobite1607 <Jacobite1...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
> >
> > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
> >
> > Hmmm.  Interesting case of reverse causation.
> >
> > Emacs was created in 1976
> > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
> >
> > So, who went away from whom?
> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> windows decides what is standard and what's not.
> People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.


That's why Aquamacs on the Mac is quite successful. It is
a distribution of GNU Emacs with Mac-like extensions.
command-z is undo, there. Btw., the z for undo, c for copy
x for cut, v for paste is coming from the Mac OS copied by MS.
Don't know if Xerox used zxcv, though...

> People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> that power.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/

Christopher Koppler

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 2:01:23 PM7/15/08
to
On Jul 15, 4:13 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan.blaze...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,

If there /was/ a war, then Windows is a war crime.

> windows decides what is standard and what's not.

Maybe. But how long will they last? Emacs keychords vs. new-fangled
editors' "common" user interface keyboard shortcuts looks a bit like
Lisp vs. object-langue-du-jour to me.

> People don't want changes.

Life is change. Get used to it. ;)

> Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT

Well, on Windows maybe, but on Linux? Ouch.

> Truth matters the least,

I sincerely don't hope so.

Thomas A. Russ

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 2:58:28 PM7/15/08
to
Slobodan Blazeski <slobodan...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jul 14, 6:31□pm, t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > Jacobite1607 <Jacobite1...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
> >
> > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
> >
> > Hmmm. □Interesting case of reverse causation.
> >
> > Emacs was created in 1976
> > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
> >
> > So, who went away from whom?
> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> windows decides what is standard and what's not.

I wasn't arguing about what people consider standard. I was objecting
to the characterization of Emacs choosing not to follow the standard,
when, if fact, Emacs had its keys standardized long before Windows.

Now, if the OP had said something neutral like "Emacs doesn't use the
standard Windows key bindings and seems awkward to Windows users", there
wouldn't really be a point of discussion.

> People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.

Well, it's always difficult to argue for a change to the standard
behavior of a program that will have the effect of breaking the habits
of the established user group in the hope of making it easier or new
adopters. It can be done, but it will have the effect of annoying all
of the existing users.

And there is the C-U-A mode easily available to change that.

Besides, on my computer the control keys all belong to Emacs. And I
still get to use Command-Z, Command-C, etc. with their standard
meanings. But then again, I like to have nice, solid, usable software
and operating systems, even if it means not using the most popular
choices.

> People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> that power.

Well, this is perhaps a generally valid observation of human behavior.
On the other hand, surrendering the truth just because it is
inconvenient seems to me to be a bad philosophy to want to follow. The
disparagement of "the reality-based community" in some political circles
seems to me to be a really insidious and evil development.

Not to mention that it flies in the face of the basic tenets of the
scientific process.

xah...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 6:34:08 PM7/15/08