Hi, just to drop some comments from someone who has rather heavy requirements due to the environment he has to live with. But to re- state what I said before: I'm a pretty extreme case and don't want to be an obstacle for nREPL or any similar project. Nevertheless you can learn a lot from VimClojure if you want to do async connections.
I don't know SLIME en detail. So please correct me in case I'm saying something terribly wrong. On 21 Mrz., 03:48, blais <martin.bl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then you'd just be redoing Swank all over again. You'd be redesigning > a different protocol to support the same kinds of operations. I don't > really see the point, unless the current protocol is unsuitable > somehow. There are basically two orthogonal things here. nREPL to connect to the server and a possible common IDE backend. The backend has already been re-implemented by almost every Clojure IDE out there. So getting things together should be fairly easy. Although, I'm way behind my schedule to work on this... A common backend would make things easier for other toolsmiths (example of the day: bluefish). Independent of how they connect to it. As for the connection: Vim requires async connections and doesn't come with a parser generator. So the SLIME/swank protocol is unsuitable in two ways: it requires a synchronuous connection and is to complicated to parse. > Where is this information? Chas probably refers to this: http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/IDE+tooling+backend > I think you're missing my point; I understand that request/response is > necessary for rich interaction and I understand why. What I'm saying > above is that a dead simple option with no async support is also > really valuable, because it is unlikely to break between versions, and > it's already good enough for a lot of users via stdin/stdout pipes > (i.e., inferior lisp). Why does a synchronuous version break less than an async one? And besides: it's good enough for a lot of users, but it is not good enough for me. > Why is swank an unsuitable protocol? It is too complicated to parse. It is synchronuous. > What are its shortcomings? I have to tie my project to some other project with ominous release cycle based on random CVS (o.O) versions? No, thank you. (Ok. This is now ranting. But it is the impression what I get from the various SLIME +swank+emacs+doesn't work threads on this list.) > What features that it doesn't support require redesigning another > protocol? Stated several times now. > Swank just transfers LISP data. Sure. But I don't want to transfer Lisp data structures. I want to transfer Vim data structures. I'm not getting the idea of this whole thread. It started as some critical feedback to some idea. Which is a Good Thing to begin with. But now things starts going downwards. No one has to justify nREPL in any way here. If you don't want it, don't use it. I'm happy that Chas puts this together and I plan to support it in VimClojure hopefully sooner than later. Swank is not an option for me for various technical (and some non-technical) reasons. If other people are happy with it, they should use it. Neither has to justify his choice. Sincerely Meikel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
