SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Trying to get SLIME and SBCL Common Lisp up-and-running but my
old stuff won't wort. It gets stuck on the count-up
connection phase.

I installed slime and sbcl from the Debian repos and my own,
old conf file looks like this: [last] - I remember it worked,
but now it doesn't, don't remember what I did - found the
README file for it - doesn't say anything how to set it
up, LOL. [second last]

The server isn't up? That's the steel bank's supposed to
be, ey?

OK, Install everything, then what?

Also in the man page for sbcl(1) it says

 Most people like to run SBCL as a subprocess under Emacs.
 The Emacs "Slime" mode provides many convenient features,
 like command line editing, tab completion, and various kinds
 of coupling between Common Lisp source files and the
 interactive SBCL subprocess.

SLIME is the ``Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs.''

 SLIME extends Emacs with support for interactive programming
 in Common Lisp. The features are centered around slime-mode,
 an Emacs minor-mode that complements the standard lisp-mode.
 While lisp-mode supports editing Lisp source files,
 slime-mode adds support for interacting with a running Common
 Lisp process for compilation, debugging, documentation
 lookup, and so on.

 The slime-mode programming environment follows the example of
 Emacs's native Emacs Lisp environment. We have also included
 good ideas from similar systems (such as ILISP) and some new
 ideas of our own.

 SLIME is constructed from two parts: a user-interface written
 in Emacs Lisp, and a supporting server program written in
 Common Lisp. The two sides are connected together with
 a socket and communicate using an RPC-like protocol.

 The Lisp server is primarily written in portable Common Lisp.
 The required implementation-specific functionality is
 specified by a

;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-
;;;
;;; this file:
;;;   http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/emacs-init/ide/slime-incal.el
;;;   https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/ide/slime-incal.el

(require 'slime)
(require 'slime-repl)
(require 'super)

(defvar inferior-lisp-program)
(setq inferior-lisp-program "/usr/bin/sbcl --noinform")

(setq slime-lisp-implementations
  '((sbcl ("sbcl" "--core" "/home/incal/sbcl.core-for-slime"))) )

(let ((the-map slime-repl-mode-map))
  (disable-super-global-keys the-map)
  (define-key the-map "\C-\M-n" #'slime-repl-next-input)
  (define-key the-map "\C-\M-p" #'slime-repl-previous-input) )

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

> Trying to get SLIME and SBCL Common Lisp up-and-running but my
> old stuff won't wort. It gets stuck on the count-up
> connection phase.
>
> I installed slime and sbcl from the Debian repos [...]

I had an old installation from MELPA as well, so that was what
got used... dammit.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

>> Trying to get SLIME and SBCL Common Lisp up-and-running but
>> my old stuff won't wort. It gets stuck on the count-up
>> connection phase.
>>
>> I installed slime and sbcl from the Debian repos [...]
>
> I had an old installation from MELPA as well, so that was
> what got used... dammit.

Yes, now it evals and byte-compile is fine but now the error
message is instead

(progn (load "/usr/share/common-lisp/source/slime/swank-loader.lisp" :verbose t) (funcall (read-from-string "swank-loader:init") :from-emacs t) (funcall (read-from-string "swank:start-server") "/tmp/slime.111300"))

This is SBCL 2.1.1.debian, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.

SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
BSD-style licenses.  See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
distribution for more information.
fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 111468 tid 111468:
invalid magic number in core: f145342434c should have been 5342434c


Process inferior-lisp exited abnormally with code 1
(progn (load "/usr/share/common-lisp/source/slime/swank-loader.lisp" :verbose t) (funcall (read-from-string "swank-loader:init") :from-emacs t) (funcall (read-from-string "swank:start-server") "/tmp/slime.111300"))

This is SBCL 2.1.1.debian, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>.

SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
BSD-style licenses.  See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
distribution for more information.
fatal error encountered in SBCL pid 111854 tid 111854:
invalid magic number in core: f145342434c should have been 5342434c


Process inferior-lisp exited abnormally with code 1

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

>>> I installed slime and sbcl from the Debian repos [...]
>>
>> I had an old installation from MELPA as well, so that was
>> what got used... dammit.
>
> Yes, now it evals and byte-compile is fine but now the error
> message is instead
>
> (progn (load
> "/usr/share/common-lisp/source/slime/swank-loader.lisp"
> :verbose t) (funcall (read-from-string "swank-loader:init")
> :from-emacs t) (funcall (read-from-string
> "swank:start-server") "/tmp/slime.111300"))

OK, it finally works, I had this setting

  (setq slime-lisp-implementations
    '((sbcl ("sbcl" "--core" "/home/incal/sbcl.core-for-slime"))) )

for some reason, I set that to nil and now it works...

So what's the next step ... hit me!

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> [2021-06-27 02:06]:
> Trying to get SLIME and SBCL Common Lisp up-and-running but my
> old stuff won't wort. It gets stuck on the count-up
> connection phase.

Before few years, SLIME worked just fine. I don't know now, somehow it
breaks connection too often. So I find it easier to disable it and use
M-x run-lisp -- it seem to be so much more stable work. Connection is
not easily broken unless I do kill-emacs by mistake. I don't have
access to all features of SLIME, but hey.

There is certain benefit of programming without helper functions as it
drives memory and thinking better. And I use CLISP implementation that
has a readline, so I run separate vterm or terminal where I can
quickly write any command and get its apropos or quickly jump to the
documentation of a function. SLIME has those features and when I am
not using SLIME I switch to CLISP and readline TAB TAB, documentation
opens for every function.

SBCL does not have a readline.

I also try to minimize libraries and just implement practical
functionality without dependent software.

Yesterday I was supposed to write a general Double Opt-In program in
Common Lisp but I wrote it in Emacs Lisp. I guess I will have to
rewrite it in Common Lisp, then I will do the same in Chicken,
Dr. Racket, Scheme and Perl, then maybe other languages to add.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Arthur Miller]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu> [2021-06-27 02:06]:
>> Trying to get SLIME and SBCL Common Lisp up-and-running but my
>> old stuff won't wort. It gets stuck on the count-up
>> connection phase.
>
> Before few years, SLIME worked just fine. I don't know now, somehow it
> breaks connection too often. So I find it easier to disable it and use
> M-x run-lisp -- it seem to be so much more stable work. Connection is
> not easily broken unless I do kill-emacs by mistake. I don't have
> access to all features of SLIME, but hey.
>
> There is certain benefit of programming without helper functions as it
> drives memory and thinking better. And I use CLISP implementation that
> has a readline, so I run separate vterm or terminal where I can
> quickly write any command and get its apropos or quickly jump to the
> documentation of a function. SLIME has those features and when I am
> not using SLIME I switch to CLISP and readline TAB TAB, documentation
> opens for every function.
>
> SBCL does not have a readline.
>
> I also try to minimize libraries and just implement practical
> functionality without dependent software.
>
> Yesterday I was supposed to write a general Double Opt-In program in
> Common Lisp but I wrote it in Emacs Lisp. I guess I will have to
> rewrite it in Common Lisp, then I will do the same in Chicken,
> Dr. Racket, Scheme and Perl, then maybe other languages to add.

Have you tried sly?

https://github.com/joaotavora/sly

"Might" be a better alternative to slime, but I don't know for sure,
don't use slime myself.

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Jean Louis]

* Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2021-06-28 13:36]:
> Have you tried sly?
> 
> https://github.com/joaotavora/sly
> 
> "Might" be a better alternative to slime, but I don't know for sure,
> don't use slime myself.

Thank you for asking. Coincidence I have installed sly today to try it
out. Slime was working well before some years. I guess Sly as Slime's
fork is a good continuance for future. I will definitely try using
it. 

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Jean Louis wrote:

> Thank you for asking. Coincidence I have installed sly today
> to try it out. Slime was working well before some years.
> I guess Sly as Slime's fork is a good continuance for
> future. I will definitely try using it.

Really, it is like an mpv-mplayer thing going on with
SLY/SLIME?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Arthur Miller wrote:

> https://github.com/joaotavora/sly
>
> "Might" be a better alternative to slime

Okay, what is bad with SLIME, supposedly?

Didn't do so much with it, so far...

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/ide/slime-incal.el

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Jean Louis wrote:

> Before few years, SLIME worked just fine. I don't know now,
> somehow it breaks connection too often.

Okay, strange, I wonder why that happens?

> SBCL does not have a readline.

A readline, you mean like in C?

But in Lisp we instead have the REPL, and SBCL has that,
of course.

Or you mean something like `read-from-minibuffer'?

Or what do you mean? :)

> Yesterday I was supposed to write a general Double Opt-In
> program in Common Lisp but I wrote it in Emacs Lisp. I guess
> I will have to rewrite it in Common Lisp, then I will do the
> same in Chicken, Dr. Racket, Scheme and Perl, then maybe
> other languages to add.

A lot of schemes you have, why write the same program in
several languages?

"Chicken [...] is a programming language, specifically
a compiler and interpreter which implement a dialect of the
programming language Scheme, and which compiles Scheme source
code to standard C"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(Scheme_implementation)>

Dr Racket (or just Racket), a Lisp dialect from 1995 based on
Scheme: "It is designed as a platform for programming language
design and implementation [...] Racket is also used for
scripting, computer science education, and research"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(programming_language)>

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: SLIME and SBCL (Common Lisp)

[Jean Louis]

* Emanuel Berg via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> [2021-07-06 09:49]:
> > SBCL does not have a readline.
> 
> A readline, you mean like in C?

Readline is GNU library where it remembers history and offers line
editing capabilities.

CLISP has readline built-in, that helps 10 times more to use the REPL easier
(without Emacs). SBCL does not have it, it asks for so much typing
without Emacs. CLISP not, as it has readline. Maybe you never tried
using CLISP from console only. 

I have been developing Lisp programs in REPL only, without editor. And
I was very reluctant to use Emacs. Today I still go to REPL often and
use its features, but I use Emacs mostly. 

How I was doing it? I would define functions. If function was good, I
would save it. There was and is, a function to save other
functions. Then I could invoke editor from within REPL. I can invoke
any type of editor, save file, load file. That is process in REPL. It
is quite a nice way of developing. People who are not used to it will
of course suggest Emacs and other way around.

> > Yesterday I was supposed to write a general Double Opt-In
> > program in Common Lisp but I wrote it in Emacs Lisp. I guess
> > I will have to rewrite it in Common Lisp, then I will do the
> > same in Chicken, Dr. Racket, Scheme and Perl, then maybe
> > other languages to add.
> 
> A lot of schemes you have, why write the same program in
> several languages?

Some VPS-es are different from others, distributions are different. It
is not always easy to have some language on every remote server. On
the other hand it helps great to do it in few dialects as it it
research on what will work best.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/