Re^2: Features missing in perl IDEs?

in reply to Re: Features missing in perl IDEs?
in thread Features missing in perl IDEs?

There are some pretty nice Lisp IDEs out there. All other things being equal (although rarely are they, of course) I'd probably rather work in Lispworks than, say, Emacs+SLIME+CMUCL for example. A lot of people like the Allegro CL IDE as well. While certainly not necessary, there's still a lot to be said for having well integrated inspectors, browsers, debuggers, and so forth, even for Lisp. And I'd think it'd actually be easier (quite a bit easier, actually) to make a decent Lisp IDE than one for something like C++.

Comment on Re^2: Features missing in perl IDEs?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Features missing in perl IDEs? by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jun 16, 2005 at 14:32 UTC
The Lisp machine was mentioned as an IDE on the list by perrin. My response to that was the programmer is redefining the Lisp machine, which means you're developing your perfect language and the perfect editor to go with it. Now, if you could do something like that with Perl, I'd be all ears. In general, if you think something isn't in Perl, try it out, because it usually is. :-) "What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"	[reply]
Re^4: Features missing in perl IDEs? by perrin (Chancellor) on Jun 16, 2005 at 16:10 UTC
That actually wasn't me. I wish I could say I know Lisp, but I don't.	[reply]

In Section Meditations