On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Steve Simon
<steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> Eric and myself, and I think maybe Ron, are using acme and acme-sac to
> interact with a BlueGene/P system.
Not as glamorous, but an alternative senario - I use sam and rio
to write embedded and windows code.
I edit the code with sam, but I do my best not to ever access
the seperate rio snarf buffer.
I keep the commands or scripts I need to test the code in rio's
snarf, when I am ready to try things I just click the rio window
and Button 2 to execute send.
-Steve
I use plan 9 port acme fairly regularly, when I get tired of weird Emacsisms that get in my way rather than helping me.
Just yesterday I was writing Common Lisp code, with an SBCL REPL in the bottom window and an editor of the lisp code in the upper window, for testing out an SNMP agent I wrote for another platform (Common Lisp for the test harness seems like it's been a great choice so far... I just love defmacro)
It's really nice to quickly cut and paste an expression from the editor to the REPL to test ideas, or vice versa... fight with S-expressions at the REPL, then cobble the program together by pasting functional parts together.
I'll probably start writing my Haskell that way, but Haskell has this damned "layout" style that I seem to default to that's like Python and gets most annoying when spacing isn't "just so". I guess I'll switch to the { ;} style that it also supports. Emacs is sadly far better with the layout style than acme seems like it could be, as there's some "choices" to the indentation that mean different things that one can cycle through, and Emacs' mode gets this right.
Again, the layout mode seems to be a bug in Haskell not a feature, but that's not a popular belief in that community.
Dave