Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sicp-vsg] Digest Number 88

Expand Messages
  • r2q2
    In regards to the choice of emacs amen. Also the bit of code is both emacs and scheme and also common lisp. Also I recommend formatting your code like this.
    Message 1 of 2 , May 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In regards to the choice of emacs amen. Also the bit of code is both
      emacs and scheme and also common lisp. Also I recommend formatting
      your code like this.
      (let
      ((x 3)
      (y 4))
      (sqrt (+ (* x x) (* y y))))

      On 11 May 2006 13:39:27 -0000, sicp-vsg@yahoogroups.com
      <sicp-vsg@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >
      > There is 1 message in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Simple Editor(s)?
      > From: "gene_sullivan" gene_sullivan@...
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message 1
      > From: "gene_sullivan" gene_sullivan@...
      > Date: Wed May 10, 2006 1:26pm(PDT)
      > Subject: Re: Simple Editor(s)?
      >
      > --- In sicp-vsg@yahoogroups.com, Philip Ansteth <pansteth@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > I concur that emacs is an excellent choice for someone
      > > just starting out. The other good choice
      > > for an editor is vi. I used vi for many years and
      > > am now about five years into emacs.
      > >
      > > You should not skimp on editing skills.
      > > It's a mistake to look for shortcuts.
      >
      > I'll agree and disagree.
      > I believe one of the best attitudes to take
      > forward while attempting to learn *any*
      > programming language is to `work smarter, not
      > harder'. If one weren't interested in
      > manifesting this then why wouldn't one
      > just do *everything* manually rather than trying
      > to program a computer to do either some or most
      > of it?! I'm so lazy -- I mean `interested
      > in short cuts' -- that I hate writing a
      > program which `does something' when I
      > can write a program which writes a program
      > which does something. Pursuant to this
      > end I write lispoid symbolic expressions.
      > By `lispoid' I mean they are-qua-ARE
      > treated-as-if symbolic expressions in one
      > or more forms of Lisp or scheme (Scheme
      > as a dialect of Lisp). Given that one
      > may compose and evaluate lispoid expressions
      > via Emacs's elisp features AND emulate Vi
      > it strikes me as daft not to take the
      > shortcut also-known-as Emacs. While
      > working back and forth between ELisp and
      > scheme I have benefited in ways I undoubtedly
      > wouldn't have had I not had this `comparative
      > linguistics' lesson among Lisp family members.
      > To wit, is the following Elisp, or Scheme
      > or both?
      >
      > (let
      > ((x 3)
      > (y 4)
      > )
      > (sqrt (+ (* x x) (* y y)))
      > )
      >
      > So, I ask in closing, might it not be-qua-be
      > better to take the `short cut' through Emacs
      > to Scheme -- and possibly learn some polyglot
      > skills along the way -- than to (mis)use
      > some not-so-extensible `manual-manipulation-only'
      > text editor which doesn't promote the kinds
      > of thought processes re-applicable to Scheme
      > while using the editor?
      >
      > > I think Emacs is easier to learn than vi, and it
      > > ties you into a Lisp-aware culture in a way that
      > > vi does not.
      >
      > I agree. But there is something more important
      > in my estimation. Using Emacs promotes an
      > `aware' culture within ... an intrapersonal
      > culture which `thinks with' lisp_&_scheme
      > concepts.
      >
      > <snipped for brevity>
      >
      > > Either way, try to train yourself NOT to use the mouse
      > > nor even the arrow keys unless you have to.
      >
      > Agreed whole heartedly.
      >
      > > A skilled touch typist with a powerful editor like emacs
      > > or vi is just a lot faster than somebody who depends
      > > on the mouse for most everything.
      >
      > Yes indeed.
      > And if one becomes mindful of the emacs functions
      > which are triggered by his or her keystrokes then
      > the writing of time_&_distracting_effort-saving
      > macros or/and elisp programs which `push the
      > bottons' ... thus improving on the efficiency
      > already gained by avoiding the mouse in favor
      > of the keyboard.
      >
      > <snipped for brevity>
      >
      > Cheers!
      > Gene
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • gene_sullivan
      ... Is qua IS. :-] Might even be a few others too, don t you think? All too often newbies and crusty old coders alike manifest the cognitive error of
      Message 2 of 2 , May 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In sicp-vsg@yahoogroups.com, r2q2 <zitterbewegung@...> wrote:
        >
        > In regards to the choice of emacs amen.

        > Also the bit of code is both
        > emacs and scheme and also common lisp.

        Is qua IS. :-]
        Might even be a few others too, don't you think?

        All too often newbies and crusty old coders alike manifest
        the cognitive error of is-and-only-IS while they are generating
        whatever they believe-into-being, say, `scheme' code ... or
        `symbolic expressions'. It seems to me that a behaviorist
        model of computing is often more helpful; to wit, if one regards
        the symbolic expression -- in the form of a let binding -- I sent
        as stimuli (EG plural of stimulus) which can be presented to (m)any
        Pavlovian REPLs in an attempt to evoke/goad/induce
        effects_or/and_side_effects-come-`responses' -- a_la a
        Stimuli-Responses model of `computing' --then this `one-and-only'
        cognitive error is more likely to be-qua-be lessened or precluded.
        Or, so it seems to me anyway.

        > Also I recommend formatting
        > your code like this.
        > (let
        > ((x 3)
        > (y 4))
        > (sqrt (+ (* x x) (* y y))))

        Recommend pursuant to what end?
        If you or anyone wants code formated like this there
        are implementations of pretty-print available in all
        the Lisp family members you mentioned, aren't there?

        As the REPLs (EG Read-Eval-Print-Loops) don't give
        a fuzzy rats butt one way or the other (arguably one
        of the benefits of explicate expressions via parenthesization,
        rather than languages which use more-sloppy implicate
        delimiters such as carrage-returns?) it allows one to
        format a snippet of code to highlight something the
        human eye can more readily detect. A friend of mine
        I've been attempting to convince of the values and virtues
        of elisp and AutoLISP (used within AutoCAD and other
        CAD applications) complained of the need to count parentheses.
        Lining up matching parentheses in the format I did allows my
        friend and others visual cortexts to notice ballanced
        parentheses from within emails -- where emacs' parens matcher
        is not available.

        So -- by way of reciprocity -- I recommend that if you want
        any of my code pretty-printed, just do it. I'm not here to
        spoon feed you code in the format you prefer. I'll pander/cater
        to my friends and newbies while satisfying the constraints of
        various Lisp family REPLs. And, likewise, if I see any
        code of yours which doesn't comply with my obsessive-compulsive
        `need' to either `see' or `have' it otherwise I'll take on the
        burden of re-formatting as per my one-and-only-one `right' way.
        Deal?

        If you think the previous form was less-than-optimal,
        what do you think of this one?

        (let ;--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--v
        ( ;let_bindings --------------------------v

        (x 3)
        (y 4)

        ) ;let_bindings --------------------------^

        (sqrt (+ (* x x) (* y y)))

        ) ;--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--^

        Pretty ugly, huh?
        Okay. Now imagine, if you will, someone whose task
        it is to scroll back and forth through Lispoid
        code to check for ballanced parentheses without the
        aid of emacs or some other editor which does
        parens matching. Isn't it easier to visually scan for
        vertically matched pairs of down-arrowish `v' and
        up-arrowish `^' characters?
        This `task' is one which emerges while newbie Lisp
        and Scheme coders encounter when parens aren't matched.
        When stimuli-to-be-fed-to-REPL is formated this way
        it fascilitates human scanning pursuant to that end.
        It may be aesthetically ugly vis-a-vis the pretty-print
        standard, but it -- arguably -- may just have some
        utilitarian merit. I'll leave this assessment to others
        to judge for themselves. I'm sure most would agree that
        if a given REPL doesn't care, then silly human aesthetics
        or `human factors' are at issue; not the validity or
        utility of the stimuli itself from the perspective of a REPL.

        Regards,
        Gene
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.