![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
orthecreedence 3 days ago
| link |
Common Lisp guy gonna chime in here...having a REPL that integrates with your editor (vim/slimv in my case) is an intense improvement on any other language I've ever used. With C you edit, leave, `make`, run. With PHP you edit, open browser, F5, run...same with JS.
With lisp, I edit, eval (simple command in my editor), see result. If I'm building a game or a long-running app, I can redefine functions while it's running without doing a full recompile and having to try and get back to the state the app was in when I wanted to test my change.
So you get the ability to live-code while the app is running. Once you get used to being able to do this, leaving your editor and opening to shell to test your app seems like a barbaric exercise.
So a good REPL (lisp or not, doesn't matter) can make the experience a lot more interactive and experimental that your average write -> save -> compile -> run cycle.
reply
gsg 3 days ago
| link |
Unfortunately the OCaml toplevel pales in comparison to CL environments like slime in terms of visibility and debuggability. Redefinition is also off the table, as OCaml is a very static language. (You can rebind the same name, which can be helpful in exploratory programming but is not at all the same thing.)
It remains an extremely useful tool though.
reply
--
"I'm not arguing that you can't get work done in these languages. You can get very solid work done in all of them, with enough persistence. My basic impetus for blogging about this stuff stems from the desire to have my cake and eat it at work. I want a language with Python's succinctness, Lisp's extensibility, C's performance, Erlang's parallelism, Java's tools, Io's orthogonality, and apparently Qi's type system. :-) And more besides." -- http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html
--
" My concept of the system expanded from that of a hierarchical notebook to a complete programming system. Yet I knew that it could not satisfy me if it contained any parts not modifiable from within itself. Emacs would stand a chance, were it not for its C-language core. Then I discovered that system-level reflection is not an unreasonable demand. I found out that instant documentation and source access for any object known to the user/programmer is a reasonable thing to expect. That it is possible to halt, repair, and resume a running program. And, depressingly, that one could do these things on 1980s vintage hardware but not on modern machines.My concept of the system expanded from that of a hierarchical notebook to a complete programming system. Yet I knew that it could not satisfy me if it contained any parts not modifiable from within itself. Emacs would stand a chance, were it not for its C-language core. Then I discovered that system-level reflection is not an unreasonable demand. I found out that instant documentation and source access for any object known to the user/programmer is a reasonable thing to expect. That it is possible to halt, repair, and resume a running program. And, depressingly, that one could do these things on 1980s vintage hardware but not on modern machines. " -- http://www.loper-os.org/?p=8
---
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.lang.lisp/XpvUwF2xKbk[101-125-false]
---
Design of a LISP-based microprocessor
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359031&coll=portal&dl=ACM
---
" Kent M Pitman 2/20/99 More LispOS?