WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]

mikaelj's comments

mikaelj | 8 years ago | on: NeoVim 0.2.0 released

As long as I can have multiple clients working on the same set of files, I don't care how it's implemented. :-)

mikaelj | 9 years ago | on: NeoVim 0.2.0 released

I do depend on a completion plugin, other than that it might just work. I'll have a look at it - thanks for the suggestion! Did not know it existed.

mikaelj | 9 years ago | on: NeoVim 0.2.0 released

Close, but not enough. I want to open the same editor session spread across multiple windows on multiple monitors.

mikaelj | 9 years ago | on: Pixie – A small, fast, native Lisp

As always, for all these small languages (MicroPython comes to mind, but even "real-world" languages such as Lua) - unless they grow a debugger, they'll always be silly toy languages nobody can use for serious work.

I'd settle for a gdb backend, really. But printf-debugging is unacceptable.

mikaelj | 10 years ago | on: Show HN: `diff arc0 arc3.1`

If we were to name your operator "aif" instead (since there is no "when" in Python), and compare if and aif:

  ## if
  val = func()
  if val:            # standard form
      code(val)      # of if

  ## aif
  aif(func, code)    # not obvious that it does the same thing
                     # and limits you to using a function defined
                     # elsewhere, or Python's crippled one-line lambda.
Whereas in Lisp, you'd do:

  ;; regular when
  (let (val (func))
    (when val        ; standard form
      (func val)))   ; of when

  ;; awhen
  (awhen (func)     ; standard form of
    (func it)       ; when, with added bound value
    ; possibly other
    ; code goes here
    )
Do you see how the two forms of Python look very different, and the two forms of Lisp look the same?

If you don't like magic, you could invent an awhen that took an extra parameter that designates the name to bind the result to, e.g. (awhen val test).

So.

Yes - you can achieve the same thing, as in any programming language that is Turing complete.

No - you cannot get the same syntax. And syntax affects readability and familiarity.

mikaelj | 12 years ago | on: Neovim's Next Feature Poll

I did not ask a question - I wanted the poll to clarify what architectural changes were to be made in order for the minimap feature to exist. :-)

mikaelj | 12 years ago | on: Neovim's Next Feature Poll

I don't follow - it is /not/ clear to me which underlying API it is that will get implemented by voting for "sublime-style mini-map".

mikaelj | 12 years ago | on: Neovim's Next Feature Poll

The refactorings thus far have been specifically aimed at making Neovim work better for /developers/. Which in turn will make it better for the users.

A very good way of thinking.

mikaelj | 12 years ago | on: Neovim's Next Feature Poll

"Sublime minimap" and "better autocomplete" are features that use an underlying API.

I'd prefer if they could be renamed to "Fetaure X which enables e.g. sublime minimap" and dito for autocomplete.

mikaelj | 12 years ago | on: Hy, a Lisp that compiles to Python 

    What is the standard you're talking about? Common Lisp? Scheme? Clojure? Emacs Lisp?
Common Lisp, of course. That's what you refer to when you say Lisp today. Otherwise you'd say Scheme, Clojure or Elisp.

    And CLOS is quite a good object system, actually.
Yes, I agree -- my comment was referring to the fact that it is missing from Hy.

mikaelj | 13 years ago | on: Opera moves to WebKit

No, it's not quite apparent at all, and no, a few Google searches did not yield any useful information. (I do however like the high horse you're on, very nice breed indeed.)

I call on your "no need to rehash it here." Without even one good example, I'd say you're just trying to be elitist.

page 1
more