Re: Question: LispWorks IDE with different CL engine?
"Paul Werkowski (as pw at snoopy dot qozzy dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Having spent a few months with cmucl + emacs + slime, I came to conclusion that the LW IDE was well worth the price of admission. Debugging was almost impossible. Setting a breakpoint meant manually inserting (break) and then trying to find the working emacs buffer again. Or maybe I just did not know how to use slime. On 2/2/2026 1:47 PM, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) wrote: > The question is not whether you can persuade the LW IDE to talk to > SBCL but what use is that, and is is worth the candle? > > If you're using the LW IDE you have a high-quality, deeply integrated > CL /right there/, in the same Lisp image as the IDE. That gives you > most of the things people liked about LispMs: the LW IDE is, by > margin, the closest thing to using a LispM I know of (it's not very > like a LispM in interface but the all-in-one-image thing is a big > deal). Getting an implementation that is sitting at the end of a bit > of string to be anything like that nice is going to be ... well, good > luck with it > > I think we need to know what OP wants to achieve.