Fire defun by typing keyword

Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Is it possible to fire off a defun by typing a specific
keyword? Sort of like the way abbrev works?

For example, I have a defun like this

(defun date ()
  (interactive)
  (insert-shell-command "my_date") )

where "my_date" is a script to format output from
/bin/date.

Now, my idea is to hook it to a keyword, say "thedate".

Again, it would work just as abbrev, only instead of a
table lookup and replace, it would trigger a defun.

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Stefan Monnier]

> Again, it would work just as abbrev, only instead of a
> table lookup and replace, it would trigger a defun.

An abbrev can have a "hook", which is indeed a function that gets called
after inserting the expansion.  So, you can do the above with an abbrev
like

  ("mydate" "" date)


-- Stefan

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Kevin Rodgers]

On 10/29/13 8:38 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Is it possible to fire off a defun by typing a specific
> keyword? Sort of like the way abbrev works?
>
> For example, I have a defun like this
>
> (defun date ()
>    (interactive)
>    (insert-shell-command "my_date") )
>
> where "my_date" is a script to format output from
> /bin/date.
>
> Now, my idea is to hook it to a keyword, say "thedate".
>
> Again, it would work just as abbrev, only instead of a
> table lookup and replace, it would trigger a defun.

I'd start with `C-h f abbrev-expand-functions'

-- 
Kevin Rodgers
Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Again, it would work just as abbrev, only instead of
>> a table lookup and replace, it would trigger a defun.
>
> An abbrev can have a "hook", which is indeed a
> function that gets called after inserting the
> expansion.  So, you can do the above with an abbrev
> like
>
>   ("mydate" "" date)

Cool! I took a break from "dead-serious hacking" a
couple of days and solved this problem with the help of
the idle timer you told me about earlier. This
"solution" is not one I would recommend to anyone, but
it was interesting to see that the idle timer indeed
worked exactly as expected.

(defun word-to-defun (word)
  (if (string= word "thedate")
      (progn
        (backward-kill-word 1)
        (date)) ))

(defun read-last-word ()
  (save-excursion
    (backward-word)
    (string-make-multibyte (thing-at-point 'word)) ))

(defun read-trigger-last-word ()
  (interactive)
  (word-to-defun (read-last-word)) )

(run-with-idle-timer 1 t 'read-trigger-last-word)

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Again, it would work just as abbrev, only instead of
>> a table lookup and replace, it would trigger a defun.
>
> An abbrev can have a "hook", which is indeed a
> function that gets called after inserting the
> expansion.  So, you can do the above with an abbrev
> like
>
>   ("mydate" "" date)

Yes, I can confirm that this works. Setup as just
another abbrev (so abbrev mode must be enabled). Also,
it is dynamic in the sense that `date' doesn't have to
be defined at the time the abbrev is setup; also, if
date is changed, this is immediately reflected the next
time you type "mydate". So it is the same old
super-dynamic dynamigth that you expect from (almost)
all Elisping.

But, apart from inserting the date, I don't know what to
do with this newfound input method. That's always the
case with my great ideas, I only find but a few use
cases for each...

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Kai Großjohann]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> 
> But, apart from inserting the date, I don't know what to
> do with this newfound input method. That's always the
> case with my great ideas, I only find but a few use
> cases for each...

You could enter the appropriate greeting for the time of day: Good
morning, Good afternoon, etc.

for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
    _
}

You could create an abbrev that reads a type (int), a variable (i), an
initial value (0), a final value (10), and then produces the above,
where _ indicates the position of the cursor.

You could create an abbrev that sends the mail your are writing :-)

Just some thoughts.

Kai

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@gmx.net> writes:

> for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
>     _
> }
>
> You could create an abbrev that reads a type (int), a
> variable (i), an initial value (0), a final value
> (10), and then produces the above, where _ indicates
> the position of the cursor.

Wow! I actually had that exact same thought a couple of
years ago:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/71599

Back then I thought there was basically no thinking at
all to programming, it was just a matter of finger
habits, eye-hand coordination, eye-brain interpretation
(as opposed to the crude "reading"), etc., all physical
in one way or another. Typing and everything should be
so fast so it could "keep up" with the thinking (which
was trivial in a pleasant, not boring, sense).

While I still think this aspect is grossly overlooked, I
don't think it is "all about that" anymore. I certainly
have the time to write a for loop now and then without
my mind beaming away in some other direction, hopelessly
lost forever after.

But it is an amazing thought - imagine to have an entire
programming language coded anew like that, with every
construct just a short abbrev away. It would make for
"parametric" programming if there ever was one.

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 4:08:14 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Kai Großjohann writes:

> > for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
> >     _
> > }
> > You could create an abbrev that reads a type (int), a
> > variable (i), an initial value (0), a final value
> > (10), and then produces the above, where _ indicates
> > the position of the cursor.

> Wow! I actually had that exact same thought a couple of
> years ago:

> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/71599

> Back then I thought there was basically no thinking at
> all to programming, it was just a matter of finger
> habits, eye-hand coordination, eye-brain interpretation
> (as opposed to the crude "reading"), etc., all physical
> in one way or another. Typing and everything should be
> so fast so it could "keep up" with the thinking (which
> was trivial in a pleasant, not boring, sense).

> While I still think this aspect is grossly overlooked, I
> don't think it is "all about that" anymore. I certainly
> have the time to write a for loop now and then without
> my mind beaming away in some other direction, hopelessly
> lost forever after.

> But it is an amazing thought - imagine to have an entire
> programming language coded anew like that, with every
> construct just a short abbrev away. It would make for
> "parametric" programming if there ever was one.

Well APL was conceived on that basis: every important/core concept
was a keystroke away.  And Iverson won the Turing award for that:
http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf

Modernized version
Warning dizziness ahead:
http://aplwiki.com/FinnAplIdiomLibrary

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> Well APL was conceived on that basis: every
> important/core concept was a keystroke away.

Cool, never heard of APL!

> And Iverson won the Turing award for that:
> http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf

Ha ha ha, so now you know who that award really belongs
to :D

Thanks, get back to you when I've read that article.

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:02:55 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:

> > Well APL was conceived on that basis: every
> > important/core concept was a keystroke away.

> Cool, never heard of APL!

> > And Iverson won the Turing award for that:
> > http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf

> Ha ha ha, so now you know who that award really belongs
> to :D

> Thanks, get back to you when I've read that article.

BTW Gnu-Apl has been recently released http://www.gnu.org/software/apl/
Is fun to have at your side and try out the Iverson paper examples

Only issue is the keyboard: the site suggests an xmodmap solution -- makes emacs
practically unusable.

However on modern X-windows something like shell command
$ setxkbmap -layout "us,apl" -variant ",sax" -option "grp:alt_shift_toggle"
will let you input apl

I dont expect you can use it without X!!

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Alan Schmitt]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
> Only issue is the keyboard: the site suggests an xmodmap solution -- makes emacs
> practically unusable.
>
> However on modern X-windows something like shell command
> $ setxkbmap -layout "us,apl" -variant ",sax" -option "grp:alt_shift_toggle"
> will let you input apl
>
> I dont expect you can use it without X!!

Is there way to try it with emacs on OS X?

Thanks,

Alan

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 07.11.2013 um 13:07 schrieb Alan Schmitt:

> Is there way to try it with emacs on OS X?

Sure! Just install X11 or XQuartz (http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/)!

--
Greetings

  Pete

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
				– Albert Einstein

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 5:37:42 PM UTC+5:30, Alan Schmitt wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:
> > Only issue is the keyboard: the site suggests an xmodmap solution -- makes emacs
> > practically unusable.
> > However on modern X-windows something like shell command
> > $ setxkbmap -layout "us,apl" -variant ",sax" -option "grp:alt_shift_toggle"
> > will let you input apl
> > I dont expect you can use it without X!!

> Is there way to try it with emacs on OS X?

Hi Alan

I believe that it compiles on Unix-ish systems so it should run on
mac. I have of course no first hand experience.

The other question is about input method.
I see
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1468922
that setxkbmap has disappeared from mac :-(

So we will need to look for an emacs (rather than window-system)
solution.

As it happens I asked on emacs-devel list
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00365.html
and a long thread evolved in which among others David de la Harpe
Golden gave a first cut at an emacs input method
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00513.html

Its really in hacked-up stage as of now and I am travelling so cant
see it through to something more polished for a few weeks.

Still if it works please let me know 
If I were trying, Id try to first start apl in emacs with something
like eshell. Then use David's input method.

Rusi

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 07.11.2013 um 15:47 schrieb Rustom Mody:

> I see
> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1468922
> that setxkbmap has disappeared from mac :-(

Nonsense. X11 was never part of Mac OS X. It was always an add-on, like Xcode. Once X11 is installed, setxkbmap is installed. (And of course it has no effect on Mac OS X applications.)

--
Greetings

  Pete

Some day we may discover how to make magnets that can point in any direction.

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:51:14 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Dyballa wrote:
> Am 07.11.2013 um 15:47 schrieb Rustom Mody:

> > I see
> > http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1468922
> > that setxkbmap has disappeared from mac :-(

> Nonsense. X11 was never part of Mac OS X. It was always an add-on,
> like Xcode.  Once X11 is installed, setxkbmap is installed. (And of
> course it has no effect on Mac OS X applications.)

Im sure you are right :-) (Having never used a mac)

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> (Having never used a mac)

Isn't there a rule against this kind of shameless
boasting? :)

Soon, perhaps there wont be X on Linux boxes either. I
heard Ubuntu is working on their own window system, and
Kubuntu (which uses KDE instead of GNOME) is switching
to Wayland.

I hope Debian sticks with X. If they don't, I'm forking
the distro into Xebian, while also rewriting xterm,
urxvt, xclip, etc., into xebian-terminal,
xebian-screenshot, and so on. Not because there is
anything wrong with those applications, but I have to do
it anyway to enforce consistent "look and feel". You
better believe it!

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, November 8, 2013 1:19:44 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Rustom Mody  writes:

> > (Having never used a mac)

> Isn't there a rule against this kind of shameless
> boasting? :)

> Soon, perhaps there wont be X on Linux boxes either. I
> heard Ubuntu is working on their own window system, and
> Kubuntu (which uses KDE instead of GNOME) is switching
> to Wayland.

> I hope Debian sticks with X. If they don't, I'm forking
> the distro into Xebian, while also rewriting xterm,
> urxvt, xclip, etc., into xebian-terminal,
> xebian-screenshot, and so on. Not because there is
> anything wrong with those applications, but I have to do
> it anyway to enforce consistent "look and feel". You
> better believe it!

Yeah I am (one of the many) fed up with gnome trying to look-n-feel
like a cheap button phone without the buttons.

Been using xfce on my debian box and whatever ubuntu gives there --
not satisfactory...

As I wrote in
http://blog.languager.org/2011/02/cs-education-is-fat-and-weak-2.html
all desktops are converging to mac/windows and since windows-8 is more
half-assed than ever, all the other players are scrambling to
'keep-up'!

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 08.11.2013 um 03:27 schrieb Rustom Mody:

> Been using xfce on my debian box and whatever ubuntu gives there --
> not satisfactory...

Maybe it's time to unearth OpenLook/OpenWindows from Solaris… (version 1.0 appeared 1989, OpenWindows 3.x and OpenLook Virtual Windows Manager five or six years later were very useful stuff)

--
Greetings

  Pete

Claiming that the Macintosh is inferior to Windows because most people use Windows, is like saying that all other restaurants serve food that is inferior to McDonald's.

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> Yeah I am (one of the many) fed up with gnome trying
> to look-n-feel like a cheap button phone without the
> buttons.

I once went to the bathhouse, and in the associated
shop, I asked the shopkeeper what the difference was
between the expensive and the cheap goggles. Withouth
hesitating an instant, the answer came from the holser:
"The wrapping."

Programming should be about applications that don't
exist, but, if they *did* exist, would make for better
lives for more people.

But, if, for example, you are very much into e-mailing -
and there are already so many e-mail clients! That's OK,
because none of them is perfect. It is just easy to put
your efforts into one of them, namely the one you
yourself use.

"Look and feel" is just the final polish on the top
surface. If configuration is possible, as it always is
for any good application, it could be left entirely to
the user.

"Look and feel" should *never* be the purpose or reason
for programming - of many unpleasant words to describe
that, "absurd" is the most pleasant. Reinvention of the
(blue) wheel is reinvention of the (red) wheel.

--
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[John Bokma]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> "Look and feel" is just the final polish on the top
> surface.

You're severely mistaken.

> If configuration is possible, as it always is
> for any good application, it could be left entirely to
> the user.

A lot of users, including me, prefer that things mostly out-of-the box.
I work as a programmer and really prefer to avoid having to tinker each
and every piece of software (or hardware) I use.

> "Look and feel" should *never* be the purpose or reason
> for programming 

Same mistake as above. There is a huge difference between a
well-researched user interface and one tinkered together by a programmer
to scratch his own itch. I've read quite a bit about UI design and I
still make mistakes because I think too often like a programmer (or:
from a testing point of view).

Luckily, my customers have no problem correcting me, and often I think:
"Should've thought about that".

A good user interface is one that doesn't need to be configured most of
the time and doesn't get in the way. That requires research and
testing. And of course such a user interface needs to be programmed.

Maybe you mean "eye candy"? Still, an application that looks good gives
me pleasure to work with. So in my case I prefer some eye candy. For
example, "syntax highlighting" was, in my experience, frowned upon years
back; eyecandy, pointless, etc. But I prefer it, and I think it makes me
more productive.

> - of many unpleasant words to describe
> that, "absurd" is the most pleasant. Reinvention of the
> (blue) wheel is reinvention of the (red) wheel.

Our eyes are more sensitive to red, so a red wheel is more visible in
the dark. Also, you don't want to drive in a car with the "reinvented"
wheels of the 18th century, let alone with the original invention...

-- 
John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog: http://johnbokma.com/        Perl Consultancy: http://castleamber.com/
Perl for books:    http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-exchange-for-books.html

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:

>> "Look and feel" is just the final polish on the top
>> surface.
>
> You're severely mistaken.

Yes, out of context the above might be read as "UIs
aren't important". Of course they are. They are very
important. That is not the point. The point is if you
are into UI design and programming, you should do that
by designing and programming... <drumroll> UIs! - *not*
do it all over (including all underlying software below
the UI), time and again! To what degree that actually
happens I don't know but with all those
<system>-terminal, <system>-screenshot, etc., around,
one is getting suspicious to say the least.

>> If configuration is possible, as it always is for any
>> good application, it could be left entirely to the
>> user.
>
> A lot of users, including me, prefer that things mostly
> out-of-the box.

I think that is the completely wrong attitude. It
doesn't matter what state you prefer your software to be
in, if it is incomplete, you must fix it, if it has
shortcomings (as you experience it), you must tweak,
configure, etc. Just using stuff as they are, discarding
them when they don't meet your expectations, and so on,
will *never* bring about any deep knowledge. This will
make you a consumer, not a producer.

>> "Look and feel" should *never* be the purpose or
>> reason for programming
>
> Same mistake as above. There is a huge difference
> between a well-researched user interface and one
> tinkered together by a programmer to scratch his own
> itch. I've read quite a bit about UI design and I still
> make mistakes because I think too often like a
> programmer (or: from a testing point of view).

No, it is you who are making a mistake. I didn't spent
hundreds of hours configuring my applications because I
thought interfaces weren't of value. On the contrary,
if it weren't for Emacs' configurability, and my own
humble efforts, I wouldn't be able to use a computer *at
all*. A couple of years ago, my eyes and fingers were in
such a state I thought about giving up computing
altogether. The Linux VTs, zsh, Emacs, Gnus, and again
my own humble efforts changed all that. So I know of the
value of interfaces, and that is not what I'm speaking
of above.

> A good user interface is one that doesn't need to be
> configured

You should always and everywhere be able to configure
*everything*!

> Maybe you mean "eye candy"? Still, an application that
> looks good gives me pleasure to work with. So in my
> case I prefer some eye candy. For example, "syntax
> highlighting" was, in my experience, frowned upon years
> back; eyecandy, pointless, etc. But I prefer it, and I
> think it makes me more productive.

Yes, again you misread me (that interfaces aren't
important). If you are interested in UI programming,
check out my home page [1] and especially my degree work
(the chapter "Editor Looks") and the home page on Emacs
and Gnus. There are lots of screenshots, too.

>> - of many unpleasant words to describe that, "absurd"
>> is the most pleasant. Reinvention of the (blue) wheel
>> is reinvention of the (red) wheel.
>
> Our eyes are more sensitive to red, so a red wheel is
> more visible in the dark.

Yes, that's beside the point, but it is interesting
nonetheless. In the degree paper I mentioned, there is a
discussion what emotional things colors do communicate
(in the context of syntax highlighting). If you read it,
please mail me...

> Also, you don't want to drive in a car with the
> "reinvented" wheels of the 18th century, let alone
> with the original invention...

That is not reinvention, that is *development*:
extending, adapting... I'm not opposed to that, at all.

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:

> Maybe you mean "eye candy"? Still, an application that
> looks good gives me pleasure to work with. So in my
> case I prefer some eye candy. For example, "syntax
> highlighting" was, in my experience, frowned upon
> years back; eyecandy, pointless, etc. But I prefer it,
> and I think it makes me more productive.

I forgot to mention, if you are into syntax
highlighting, you might check out this project - a major
mode for the fpscalc tool - as font lock was a big part
of that project.

http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/fps/

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

I went to the public library today and read the current
issue of "Linux Magazine", in which there is a small
piece on this. Apparently, the Ubuntu people have been
working on Mir as a replacement for X, mostly because
they need it for the smartphone version of Ubuntu.

For the laptop version, they will include a script that
assesses the hardware: if it is deemed sufficient, Mir
will run, and otherwise, X will run (so X will still be
provided, and with XMir in between).

So, in all fairness, Ubuntu did *not* drop X because of
"look and feel" hysteria. They dropped it because it
wasn't good enough for smartphones, and then they
wanted it on laptops as well to get consistency.

This is of course only mildly better than my first
assessment. I don't think the other distros eventually
will use Mir, so it would still have been best to just
improve X (or Wayland), of course in collaboration with
Debian, and all other distros that uses X (and indeed
even the BSD people, perhaps!).

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Alan Schmitt]

Hi Rusi,

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> I believe that it compiles on Unix-ish systems so it should run on
> mac. I have of course no first hand experience.

It seems to be working, and there is a request to put it in homebrew, so
it should be very easy to install soon
(https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/issues/24046).

> The other question is about input method.
> I see
> http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1468922
> that setxkbmap has disappeared from mac :-(
>
> So we will need to look for an emacs (rather than window-system)
> solution.

This would be my preferred approach.

> As it happens I asked on emacs-devel list
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00365.html
> and a long thread evolved in which among others David de la Harpe
> Golden gave a first cut at an emacs input method
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00513.html
>
> Its really in hacked-up stage as of now and I am travelling so cant
> see it through to something more polished for a few weeks.
>
> Still if it works please let me know 
> If I were trying, Id try to first start apl in emacs with something
> like eshell. Then use David's input method.

I will have a look at this thread, and if things work I will report
here.

Thanks again,

Alan

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Alan Schmitt]

Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:

> Am 07.11.2013 um 13:07 schrieb Alan Schmitt:
>
>> Is there way to try it with emacs on OS X?
>
> Sure! Just install X11 or XQuartz (http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/)!

Thank you for the suggestion (I already have xquartz installed), but I'd
rather not install and launch a second version of emacs.

Alan

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 08.11.2013 um 13:13 schrieb Alan Schmitt:

> I'd rather not install and launch a second version of emacs.

Which first and second version do you mean? I myself also like a third (NS variant) and a fourth ("AppKit" variant) version… (And never use what Apple put into Mac OS X under the name "emacs".)

--
Greetings

  Pete

We have to expect it, otherwise we would be surprised.

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Kai Großjohann]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> 
> While I still think this aspect is grossly overlooked, I
> don't think it is "all about that" anymore. I certainly
> have the time to write a for loop now and then without
> my mind beaming away in some other direction, hopelessly
> lost forever after.

I don't think it's "grossly overlooked".  In Java, verbosity is so bad
that a lot of tooling has sprung up around helping with this kind of
thing.  I guess every Java "IDE" allows you to add a member to a class
and then auto-create getter and setter for it.  And Eclipse at least has
this template for a for loop that does just what I suggested.

I think it's a matter of the amount of verbosity.  In Java, it never
bothered me to write a for loop, so I didn't use IDE support for that.
But I've used IDE support more than once for getters and setters :-(

I wonder how the Ada community approaches this aspect.

Kai

Re: Fire defun by typing keyword

[Emanuel Berg]

Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@gmx.net> writes:

>> While I still think this aspect is grossly
>> overlooked, I don't think it is "all about that"
>> anymore. I certainly have the time to write a for
>> loop now and then without my mind beaming away in
>> some other direction, hopelessly lost forever after.
>
> I don't think it's "grossly overlooked".  In Java,
> verbosity is so bad that a lot of tooling has sprung
> up around helping with this kind of thing.  I guess
> every Java "IDE" allows you to add a member to a class
> and then auto-create getter and setter for it.  And
> Eclipse at least has this template for a for loop that
> does just what I suggested.

No, I know there are so called "template facilities"
like yasnippet and the like. But such expansion of
course is only a (possible) part of the whole physical
dimension to programming.

I think it is *very* overlooked. I have read countless
of books on programming telling me the workings of the
for loop, how many bits an integer allocates in memory,
all that stuff.

But I have very seldom read about eyes, fingers (muscle
memory/finger habits), posture, colors, faces, window
positioning, shortcuts (*short* shortcuts: few letters,
and not having to reach, around the "asdf" and "jkl;"
keys), never "looking down", using the US layout, using
the compose key, using Emacs, (not) using the mouse, not
having a blinking cursor, mastering cursor movements,
all that stuff.

Not to mention the *mental* stuff, that is interwoven in
all of that (and get "produced" in turn) in a
complicated way, but also brings its own herbs to the
druid's potion. And then the cycle begins anew (I don't
pretend to understand it but I understand it enough to
know it is there - that it is never mentioned is because
it is *difficult*).

I think that the mental-physical side is a *huge* part
of being productive with the computer, and I am surprised
they don't write about it. In a book on carpentry, they
tell you how to hold the hammer. In a book on boxing,
they tell you how to stand before you punch. But in
books on programming, you get the for loop and
everything else you have to figure out yourself. Not
good!

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573