BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Editing code in S-Expression form effectively depends somewhat on editor
> features like highlighting parentheses, otherwise keeping track of them
> becomes an issue. This hinders its usability with simpler text editors
> (Notepad, Nano, ...).

Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
language these days.

However, regarding Lisp...

Somebody supposedly stole the code for the Strategic Defense
Initiative in the 1980's. To prove it, he showed the last
page of code (I am only showing a few lines of this):

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 4:52:34 PM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> BGB <cr8...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> > Editing code in S-Expression form effectively depends somewhat on editor
> > features like highlighting parentheses, otherwise keeping track of them
> > becomes an issue. This hinders its usability with simpler text editors
> > (Notepad, Nano, ...).
> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
> language these days.
>
> However, regarding Lisp...
>
> Somebody supposedly stole the code for the Strategic Defense
> Initiative in the 1980's. To prove it, he showed the last
> page of code (I am only showing a few lines of this):
>
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
<
The PDP8 LISP interpreter could use the square bracket
to indicate "as many lose parens as necessary to close
the Lambda."
<
So the above could have been written::
<
] < or
]))
depending.......

On 7/18/2021 4:52 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> Editing code in S-Expression form effectively depends somewhat on editor
>> features like highlighting parentheses, otherwise keeping track of them
>> becomes an issue. This hinders its usability with simpler text editors
>> (Notepad, Nano, ...).
>
> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
> language these days.
>

If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
choice of text editor.

One might run into situations where they have to use Notepad or Nano or
Leafpad or VIM or whatever else happens to be on whatever computer they
are interacting with at the time.

....

> However, regarding Lisp...
>
> Somebody supposedly stole the code for the Strategic Defense
> Initiative in the 1980's. To prove it, he showed the last
> page of code (I am only showing a few lines of this):
>
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>

Hmm...

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
> > Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
> > little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
> > language these days.
> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
> choice of text editor.

Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
creation. More in the next release, promise!

Writers aren't asking for it, either.

That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).

Andy Valencia
Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
>>> language these days.
>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
>> choice of text editor.
>
> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
> creation. More in the next release, promise!
>
> Writers aren't asking for it, either.
>
> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
> of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
> should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
>

I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".

Major one I use is Notepad2, but it does have a few minor annoyances:
Its syntax highlighting doesn't quite match the languages I use (1);
Its syntax highlighting seems to be hard coded into the program;
Syntax highlighting causes it to vary the font width (not strictly
monospace);
Its parenthesis matching does not ignore parens within string literals
or similar (leading to annoyances);
....

*1: C uses C++ highlighting; Verilog doesn't exist at all; ...

Granted, I am using a version which is a bit over a decade old, so it is
possible some of this could have been addressed since then.

Goes and looks at it, seems in the following years, it mostly added more
IDE-style features, and it appears that any mention of it has been
seemingly removed from Wikipedia (it just redirects to Notepad++, which
is technically a different program).

....

> Andy Valencia
> Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
> To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
>

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:46:12 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
> > BGB <cr8...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
> >>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
> >>> language these days.
> >> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
> >> choice of text editor.
> >
> > Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
> > track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
> > out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
> > not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
> > who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
> > creation. More in the next release, promise!
> >
> > Writers aren't asking for it, either.
> >
> > That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
> > of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
> > should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
> >
> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
<
VIM is usefully nice in this area.
<
But I would rather have 17 VIMs editing 17 files and another window to run make
and execute a.outs than an IDE any day.
>

MitchAlsup [2021-07-19 11:49:58] wrote:
> But I would rather have 17 VIMs editing 17 files and another window to
> run make and execute a.outs than an IDE any day.

We're slowly getting to the point where you don't really need to choose
between the two (because the LSP protocol gives access to
IDE-functionality from (potentially) any editor).

Stefan

On 7/19/2021 8:46 AM, BGB wrote:

snip

> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
>
>
> Major one I use is Notepad2, but it does have a few minor annoyances:
> Its syntax highlighting doesn't quite match the languages I use (1);
> Its syntax highlighting seems to be hard coded into the program;
> Syntax highlighting causes it to vary the font width (not strictly
> monospace);
> Its parenthesis matching does not ignore parens within string literals
> or similar (leading to annoyances);
> ...
>
> *1: C uses C++ highlighting; Verilog doesn't exist at all; ...
>
>
> Granted, I am using a version which is a bit over a decade old, so it is
> possible some of this could have been addressed since then.
>
>
> Goes and looks at it, seems in the following years, it mostly added more
> IDE-style features, and it appears that any mention of it has been
> seemingly removed from Wikipedia (it just redirects to Notepad++, which
> is technically a different program).

Agreed that Notepad++ is a different program, but you might try it, as
it seems to address most, if not all, of your issues with Notepad2.
Specifically, it supports both C and C++, and Verilog (and a bunch of
thers). And if you don't like its syntax highlighting, you can change
it. Don't know about the other issues.

As there are lots of freely available text editors, there is no reason
not to try different ones to see if you like them.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 2021-07-19, BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
>> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
>>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
>>>> language these days.
>>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
>>> choice of text editor.
>>
>> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
>> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
>> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
>> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
>> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
>> creation. More in the next release, promise!
>>
>> Writers aren't asking for it, either.
>>
>> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
>> of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
>> should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
>>
>
> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
>
>
> Major one I use is Notepad2, but it does have a few minor annoyances:
> Its syntax highlighting doesn't quite match the languages I use (1);
> Its syntax highlighting seems to be hard coded into the program;
> Syntax highlighting causes it to vary the font width (not strictly
> monospace);
> Its parenthesis matching does not ignore parens within string literals
> or similar (leading to annoyances);
I use vim and recently started with amp.
https://amp.rs/
both amp and vim use custom syntax files, amp sublime-syntax...
But I use VS for projects on Windows...
That is because other use it....

--
bmaxa now listens Ob-Neob Radio

On 7/19/2021 11:49 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:46:12 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
>> On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
>>> BGB <cr8...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
>>>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
>>>>> language these days.
>>>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
>>>> choice of text editor.
>>>
>>> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
>>> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
>>> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
>>> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
>>> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
>>> creation. More in the next release, promise!
>>>
>>> Writers aren't asking for it, either.
>>>
>>> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
>>> of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
>>> should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
>>>
>> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
>> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
> <
> VIM is usefully nice in this area.
> <
> But I would rather have 17 VIMs editing 17 files and another window to run make
> and execute a.outs than an IDE any day.
>>
>

You are an unreconstructed fuddy-duddy. Me too.

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 11:49 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:46:12 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
> >> On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
> >>> BGB <cr8...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
> >>>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
> >>>>> language these days.
> >>>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
> >>>> choice of text editor.
> >>>
> >>> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
> >>> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
> >>> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
> >>> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
> >>> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
> >>> creation. More in the next release, promise!
> >>>
> >>> Writers aren't asking for it, either.
> >>>
> >>> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
> >>> of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
> >>> should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
> >>>
> >> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
> >> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
> > <
> > VIM is usefully nice in this area.
> > <
> > But I would rather have 17 VIMs editing 17 files and another window to run make
> > and execute a.outs than an IDE any day.
> >>
> >
> You are an unreconstructed fuddy-duddy. Me too.
<
Hey; I represent that remark !!

MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-5, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> On 7/19/2021 11:49 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 10:46:12 AM UTC-5, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/2021 8:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
>>>>> BGB <cr8...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
>>>>>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
>>>>>>> language these days.
>>>>>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
>>>>>> choice of text editor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
>>>>> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
>>>>> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
>>>>> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
>>>>> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
>>>>> creation. More in the next release, promise!
>>>>>
>>>>> Writers aren't asking for it, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
>>>>> of _writing_ and _reading_. If you're not, I have a good idea on what you
>>>>> should allocate some resources for (hint: not more IDE baggage).
>>>>>
>>>> I prefer relatively basic text editors, rather than IDEs. However,
>>>> syntax highlighting and parenthesis matching are still "nice to have".
>>> <
>>> VIM is usefully nice in this area.
>>> <
>>> But I would rather have 17 VIMs editing 17 files and another window to run make
>>> and execute a.outs than an IDE any day.
>>>>
>>>
>> You are an unreconstructed fuddy-duddy. Me too.
> <
> Hey; I represent that remark !!
>
I don't, I just resemble it.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 7/19/2021 6:22 AM, Andy Valencia wrote:
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Editors have become quite powerful with syntax support, there is
>>> little reason to use a non-syntax-aware editor on a programming
>>> language these days.
>> If one has a non-ideal setup, there may be other factors limiting the
>> choice of text editor.
>
> Notice that ebooks don't color the verbs one way, nouns another. They don't
> track your eye and flicker a reticule around your focus. They don't explode
> out lists of alternative spellings or words. The left/right/top/bottom are
> not filled with a swamp of bright icons--each representing a team of SW devs
> who are desperate DESPERATE for you to click and see their own wondrous
> creation. More in the next release, promise!

While I am sympathetic with your position, the comparison is not fair.
E-book readers are essentially (ahem!) read only devices. Expect for
perhaps setting bookmarks or highlighting text, you are not creating new
information. So there is no use for coloring verbs, matching
parentheses, etc., which might benefit writers.

> Writers aren't asking for it, either.

Again, while some of the more extreme stuff is not to my liking, I, as a
code writer, do like key word highlighting, parentheses matching, etc.
I know I am not alone, as others have posted. And with my poor typing,
when writing text, I appreciate highlighting potential spelling
mistakes, and even poor grammar.
Of course, YMMV.

> That's because when you're fluent in a language, all of that gets in the way
> of _writing_ and _reading_.

Not necessarily, at least for writing. As I get older, I find my typing
to be getting worse. I don't know if that is true for others. And if I
am writing and editing on the fly a text document, I appreciate the
system pointing out to me when one of my edits has messed up my grammar.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/16/2021 6:21 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I think it is telling that an ugly hack-job (Objective-C) is used
>>> significantly more often than SmallTalk.
>>
>> Objective-C is a programming language in the conventional sense
>> of the term.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
>> Smalltalk is both a programming language and a surrounding
>> development environment. The two are tightly intertwined,
>> which is a double-edged sword.
>>
>> After years of being part of the Smalltalk community, I
>> have the impression that having to work on Smalltalk
>> programs inside the Smalltalk environment is a large
>> part of why Smalltalk never caught on as a "serious"
>> programming language. Its model was just too different.
>
> OK.
>
> I once tried messing with Squeak, but at the time was kinda
> bewildered by it. I guess this is possibly a bit of a drawback
> if this is the sentiment everyone else has as well.

I have looked at Squeak but not done very much with it. My
impression is that Squeak is basically the same as Smalltalk,
except it includes a novel scheme intended to make it easier to
retarget the VM (and hence the entire Squeak environment). I
never did manage to wrap my head around how the retargeting
stuff works, so I don't know what to make of the Squeak effort
(or the Squeak language/environment, except insofar as it
resembles Smalltalk).