[HN Gopher] SLT - A Common Lisp Language Plugin for Jetbrains ID...
___________________________________________________________________
SLT - A Common Lisp Language Plugin for Jetbrains IDE Lineup
Author : gjvc
Score : 114 points
Date : 2023-01-15 10:30 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Amazing stuff! Really excited to try this out. Common Lisp is a
| beast of a language.
| sureglymop wrote:
| Oh that's awesome! I've come to actually use the Jetbrains
| programs since they introduced the New UI. It clearly feels very
| VS Code inspired but I'm glad it's no longer a weird mess of UI
| all over the place. Now it's a nice IDE for C and Lisp :)
| barrenko wrote:
| This is really really cool.
|
| Cursive (the plugin for Clojure) is already a work of art.
| dieortin wrote:
| I'm currently trying the new UI, but find it slower to work
| with than the old one. It has many things hidden behind menus
| now, which makes the UI prettier but less effective.
| BozeWolf wrote:
| Use keyboard shortcuts and then search for the command:
|
| I use these a lot:
|
| - search everywhere, code actions, etc.: double shift
|
| - find action: Cmd shift a, or ctrl shift a
|
| I hope that it still works in the new ui, didn't test it yet.
| ris58h wrote:
| > double shift
|
| Who the hell decided that it's a good combination for a
| shortcut? I just press it occasionally.
| owl57 wrote:
| I think it's easier to press than anything more
| conventional (and also super-easy to remember). This fast
| and smart jumping around function is one of the biggest
| things I miss when I use Emacs -- and the shortcut is an
| important part of the experience.
|
| _> I just press it occasionally._
|
| Wouldn't that be a big problem only if it was something
| more destructive than a search popup?
|
| P.S. But I may have a weird perspective on shortcuts: the
| one I have sweared about pressing accidentally _more than
| once_ is Ctrl-Alt-Backspace. For the unfamiliar: it 's an
| emergency way to kill the X server (=> the entire
| graphical user session), nowadays usually disabled by
| default.
| nguyenkien wrote:
| You can change it. I assign to ctrl+shift+p like vscode
| sureglymop wrote:
| Yeah I totally understand that. I do have to give them credit
| though because everything is still technically "reachable
| with the same steps". For example, I was reading a help
| article which went like go to "X > Y > Z" menu. And in the
| new UI it was surprisingly exactly the same way to get there
| as in the old one.
| sendfoods wrote:
| Redesigns will always be controversial, especially with
| tech-people. Personally, I quite enjoy the redesign.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| I think the UI for fleet was a huge step forward, unfortunately
| fleet is not ready for any real work, but you can replicate
| most of UI in vsCode
| bitwize wrote:
| Oh, thank goodness. If Common Lisp is going to grow as a
| language, it needs much better tooling than Emacs+SLIME.
| JetBrains is best-of-breed in development environments;
| integrating well with it or Visual Studio Code is a must for any
| language or framework today.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Lispworks and Allegro exist for decades, both definitely better
| than Emacs + SLIME.
| bitwize wrote:
| And prohibitively expensive. You can't position CL as an
| alternative to, say, Node when the only decent IDE for
| developing in it costs thousands of dollars.
| pjmlp wrote:
| First there are cheaper license options, second, each one
| gets the tooling they are willing to pay for.
|
| Even street performers pay for their tools, even if it is
| from some second hand place or street bazar.
|
| Bazar doesn't mean one gets to take what is on the stands.
| bitwize wrote:
| Sure, you can get nerfed tools at lower license tiers.
| But if you can get full tooling with a UI that's more
| modern than Windows XP for some other language for less,
| why not pay less? This is why Lisp got its lunch ate in
| the 90s: Lisp vendors vastly overestimated the
| willingness of developers to pay dearly for Lisp when
| they can get 80% of Lisp for no or much more reasonable
| cost.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| That is cool. On rare occasion I need to use Clojure for work
| projects, and then I really like Cursive + IntelliJ. That is an
| existence proof that a Common Lisp plugin + IntelliJ could be
| awesome.
|
| I paid $3500 for a LispWorks Pro license and so far I have been
| paying the $750/year maintenance fee. It is really nice, but as I
| find myself using Python much more than Common Lisp, I might drop
| paying maintenance and eventually go back to SBCL. Even with
| LispWorks I usually use Emacs + Slime.
|
| Anyway, this new SLT plugin is in my "must play with" list.
| Thanks to the developers.
| mdaniel wrote:
| w.r.t. "THIS PLUGIN IS EXPERIMENTAL and can crash at any time!
| Please report all bugs!", there are quite a few existing plugins
| that capture exceptions from their plugin and send those error
| reports in some automated way (email, Sentry, I think one even
| had a GitHub issues action using an api token):
| https://plugins.jetbrains.com/intellij-platform-explorer/ext...
|
| I mention this because (a) automated error reports are able to
| carry context with them that less experienced bug reporters might
| not know to send (b) it's a pet peeve of mine when an app asks me
| to gather up version and platform info that it already knows
|
| This is the gory details: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-
| community/blob/idea/22...
| Kamq wrote:
| Some people resent having information from their computer sent
| to someone else without their consent (merely using the plugin
| does not count as proper consent).
|
| And based on demographics, that's probably going to be a much
| higher percentage of this group than in other groups.
|
| A checkbox (off by default) to enable automated reporting would
| probably fly with most people though.
| mdaniel wrote:
| It's not without consent, it still requires two user-
| initiated actions: clicking on the red error icon in the
| bottom tray, then pushing "Submit" on the resulting dialog
|
| Apologies if my use of "automated way" was interpreted as
| "automatic way"
| Kamq wrote:
| Gotcha, I did interpret it that way. No big deal. Exact
| meaning is hard through text sometimes.
|
| You have a good day.
| hedgehog0 wrote:
| Good luck! I actually wanted to implement many months ago and
| thought I did not have the expertises...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-15 23:01 UTC)