Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!dkuug!iesd!fischer
From: fischer@iesd.dk (Lars P. Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Structure editors (Re: UNIX needs a real text editor)
Message-ID: <1628@iesd.dk>
Date: 1 Apr 89 06:52:53 GMT
References: <222@imspw6.UUCP> <252@torch.UUCP> <2112@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com> <2384@buengc.BU.EDU> <3565@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: fischer@iesd.dk
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Aalborg
Lines: 31
In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net's message of 27 Mar 89 20:30:54 GMT


In article <3565@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Has anyone actually had a good experience with one of these? I've used
>language-oriented editors and structure-chart code generators, and I've
>found neither to be worth the time or money.

Check out the AI and LISP litterature. The InterLisp people *love*
their structure editor, with DWIM (do-what-I-mean) interface and all
that (See [1]). Lots of research have gone into language-based editor,
and many people find these editors to be very good.

Me? I use Gnu Emacs, and haven't seen a language-based editor worth
the effort. It's all a matter of taste. Choice of editor is, after
all, one of the most *personal* things there is.

/Lars

[1] Erik Sandewall: "Programming in an Interactive Environment: The
    Lisp Experience", in David R. Barstow and Howard E. Shrobe and Erik
    Sandewall: "Interactive Programming Environments", McGraw-Hill,
    1984, pp 31-80.

    This guy really love InterLisp and it's editor. The article is
    followed by a letter from Richard M Stallman (creator of Emacs),
    stating that structure oriented editors are No Good, and a letter
    by Sandawall stating that RMS is All Wrong. Great fun!
--
Lars Fischer,  fischer@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer
Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci., University of Aalborg
Strandvejen 19, DK-9000 Aalborg, DENMARK
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
			-- Arthur C. Clarke