#+TITLE: Lisping sideways #+author: screwlisp * tl;drae :don*t_read_anything_Else: #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE ,* But knowledge representation :life:in:plain:text: So org files. Look like simple heirarchical markdown with some devices (names, tags) displayed in pretty color and hyperlinks are smartly clickable. Headings and source are foldable. Elisp source by default. #+END_EXAMPLE * My description of what I normally do did not seem easy. When I just want to jam a bit, it normally goes like this: |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | emacs | | | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | | new org file | | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | | | ensure (lisp . t) | | | | | eshell sbcl | | | | | (slime-connect) | | | | | Title, heading | | | | | demarcate source | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | | | | lisp | | | | | writing | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | | | save to my tilde | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | | update gophermap | | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| | done | | | | |-------+------------------+-------------------+---------| this is what is happening right now. Okay, I've now remembered ==M-x customize-variable org-babel-load-languages == ==Value-menu== Lisp -> toggle -> Accept-and-save. So that's one resolved permanently by emacs-fu. But my point remains. This doesn't seem like a great thing to suggest other people try. Either everything I said is compeltely trivial, or something isn't completely trivial. * source management Is it - residential to the org-file - lob-ingested from another org-file - tangled - To here - To an ASDF system - In ==~/common-lisp/== - In ==~/.local/share/common-lisp/source/== - In ==~/.emacs.d/my-elisp-package/== - Something else ** About common lisp systems :aside: This has reminded me of two things: How I get the vibe that Kent basically wishes competing common lisp system facilities would compete and then standardise, rather than ASDF having arguably kind of done parts of what Kent thinks is a good idea, and everyone else just agreeing to settle with ASDF forever. People being lisp compilers. However having talked to lots of people who use any of the language's various classic source loading management (and residential) facilities, and remembering sometimes lisp source is held inside an elisp package if it's closely associated with emacs, this isn't even obviously true. For example, some people just iteratively load a lisp file into their current image, relying on the defvar / defparameter distinction to preserve or clobber state. It's not that any of the aboves are obviously the best; they have different strengths and weaknesses. ** Everyone likes whichever one they started with I see this line written about distinctions in programming or sysadmin choices. But I would argue two things: 1. These differences are distinctions 2. These distinctions have different strengths and weaknesses Implying different hackers and different sysadmins, who appear to be subtlely different are in fact exponentially different. (If every small difference is a dimension; imagine how every weiqi game turns out to be unique.) ** Emacs is the lisp editor emacs has a tight relationship with the history of lisp programming in the 60s, 70s and 80s, as well as 90s+ but less visibly. So to have elisp emacs without a tenant lisp is obscure; and to have a tenant lisp without an emacs is obscure. In this case I am calling the big proprietary IDEs, and Interlisp Medley, obscure though they really want for a special classication. In particular, I think using lisp in the same manner one interfaces with 8c is obscure. * One hack at an answer Well the topic wandered a bit; clearly it's not a simple situation ("what is the good?"). But I thought about it and I think I can distill my own essence like this: |------------+------------------------+-----------| | Have emacs | | | | Have lisp | | | |------------+------------------------+-----------| | | Configuration org-file | | |------------+------------------------+-----------| | | org-babel framework | New | | | org-file | Local | | | | org-babel | |------------+------------------------+-----------| * Knowledge representation rears eir beautiful head Organising previous source inside emacs reminds me of how I've seen and misunderstood people asking for ideas about organising high-dimensional collections. I was always akin to saying, "hey why not links in an org file" or else - what about a heirarchical directory structure (like gopher or unix). I'm going to potentially ill-use my rhetorical skull of Erik Sandewall. I really like a cute line I saw in one of his 80s publications, that if your knowledge representation is trivial text files on a heirarchical filesystem, protip, you've failed.* ** I think Erik actually walked this back, and his indemnifying of software :aside: individuals against having their brains fiddled with by external forces, settling on basically encouraging students to jiggle the s-expression sources of their personal novice-5 clones in their own directions (while turned off, as long as it preserved coherent individuality). *** By the way, there must be a whole bunch of Swedish people in their mid :aside: 30s who have first hand experience of Sandewall's cognitive intelligence courses. * But knowledge representation :life:in:plain:text: So org files. Look like simple heirarchical markdown with some devices (names, tags) displayed in pretty color and hyperlinks are smartly clickable. Headings and source are foldable. Elisp source by default.