On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Sean Corfield <s...@corfield.org> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Without starting a flame war - how are you finding LightTable for > production? Moving away from emacs and paredit would be quite hard and > every time I look at LightTable I get really excited until I actually > download and try it... That is almost certainly because I don't have the > time to invest in learning it and I expect it to do everything out of the > box immediately and just the way I like it :) > > Like Emacs, it has its quirks(!) and it takes some adjustment after two > years of using Emacs daily (and several years using Emacs twenty years > back!). > I'll provide a counterpoint to that. Let me preface by saying I do not hate Light Table. I supported the kickstarter, and I continue to follow the development as one of the best hopes for future Clojure development. I am now using Light Table for Clojurescript development on our not-small-but-not-massive Clojure/Clojurescript UI at Threatgrid. I find the live browser REPL interaction to be invaluable and finally makes me willing to invest more into the Clojurescript UI. Up until now I've found the Clojurescript REPL support to be lacking. Austin is promising, but I've still yet to find anyone who can demonstrate it functioning correctly in a non-demo environment. Light Table works for this, and it works quite well. That being said, Light Table is barely usable as text editor and is a really terrible editor for Clojure in specific. I hope (and believe) this will improve over time. The token paredit barf/slurp shows some attention to details, and work is ongoing for an extended paredit mode. But, I find that I spend a troubling large portion of my time in Light Table wrangling parenthesis and fighting the editor compared to the time I spend actually writing code. The exact opposite is true in emacs. I spend almost no mental effort on the syntax/structure. When I want to move an expression around or make a structural change, I can effect that change almost trivially with no distraction from the coding task at hand. Obvious, there's a lot of practice and experience goes into that, but it's only because emacs has those capabilities in the first place. While every developer is different, I have a hard time imaging any emacs/paredit user would find editing in Light Table a pleasurable experience, so far as the act of writing the code is concerned. There are many, many reasons to like Light Table and to use Light Table for now, but for day to day Clojure development, it's not even close to being ready for serious use. (only my opinion) Still, everyone should give it a try, if you approach it from the perspective of being a tool that might be able to provide some unique value in certain situations, I don't think you'll be disappointed. -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
