Light Table 0.4 released
chris-granger.com
chris-granger.com
Video codecs generally encode motion first ("move this rectangle left 10 pixels"), and then fix any residual errors ("apply this patch"). It is _far_ more efficient to transmit motions and residuals than an entire frame.
This demo actively resists motion encoding, since a 3d volume shifting perspective is approximated poorly by a linear shift. Almost every pixel is changing each frame, in an unpredictable manner. Youtube doesn't allow the encoder enough bits to represent the actual image well, and the result is a blurry mess with occasional flashes of clarity when the encoder transmits a keyframe (an entire picture, added to allow fast seeking).
1.) Vim bindings (less impressive accomplishment but necessary for me); 2.) fuzzy matching for files, commands, and settings (this concept really wins); 3.) having a browser as a tab(!, it makes working full screen a joy); 4.) object eval(!); 5.) and EXCELLENT autocomplete -- even in Coffeescript -- most likely a product of the eval stuff going on, but better than Sublime. Wow. GREAT WORK.
My wishlist of generic "power user" features: macros support (for ex., I'd like to set Cmd-Del to delete up one line), configurable margins, more preloaded skins, a way to easily change the color palette of a skin, and tmux / real-time collaboration equivalent.
I have gotten around certain quirks ~ add a tabset to simulate margins, also add a key binding for adding a tabset to mock the vsplit vim command
After the Nifty Minidrive failure and others, I can surely say this is the best money I've spent on Kickstarter.
* Fuzzy matching doesn't intelligently handle spaces in the search string whereas ST does (very handy for deep directory structure). * No indentation detection or quick switching / conversion between indentation schemes.
I love the work Chris and the team are doing on LT at the moment, it's looking amazing at the moment, and am feverishly awaiting the source release so some of us can chip in and help!
Congrats to the Light Table team!
I wonder how they handle updating anonymous function references--in the JVM, everything ends up being a class name (e.g. Foo$1 whatever), so even "anonymous" classes technically have an identifier to say "here's the new code". I wonder what that is for Light Table/the V8 VM.
I'd love to see this hotswap behavior built into all JS wire/debugger protocols. Maybe a W3C spec?
Light table is really awesome, and really driving the bleeding edge, but debugging/inspecting/hotswapping seems like something other editors could do as well.
Problem is that CodeMirror's docs for it are a tad confusing and I'm not even sure if it will be as flexable as Sublime/textmate .tmLanguage syntaxing. Anyone got a good resource or advice on this?
For example, I want to highlight function calls in coffeescript, such as:
obj.func '100', () ->
Once this thing goes open source I'd be happy to revamp all of the syntax highlighting for js/cs/css/stylus/html etc. should this make any sense, though technically as it uses CodeMirror I'd be revamping for them instead. Of course this would mean editing the .css files provided by LightTable though, so I'm half right.
They are more flexible, but a bit harder to get going with. Basically, you get to implement a full parser, if you want, or just a tokenizer (optionally keeping some minimal state).
I was really missing but the ability to (de-/re-)connect to a given client, which 0.4.0 provides. In my opinion LT is not just a code editor (editing features are pretty poor yet indeed) but a code experimenting platform. And there it rocks. Even in alpha, it compares pretty well with Emacs Live in terms of stability and usability.
ClojureScript, Node and JS support is a terrific move. This means I may even soon use Brackets (another nice node-webkit project) less for live JS HTML coding and debugging and live mostly in LT.
Congratulations Chris and Co!
Chris is focusing on providing new functionality; the expected stuff can and should come later.
I am expecting a lot from the forthcoming plugin system. It will be nice to be able to script LT in ClojureScript (the language in which LT is mostly developed).
But it sounds like it's proprietary software? Why do you need that if you're getting funded through Kickstarter?
Either way, it looks like a really inspiring project, and I hope we see many more like it.
LT will be open source, just want it to get a bit more stable first.
My first prototype implementation, a tree-walking interpreter in OCaml I threw together in a few days, was discouragingly slow, so a lot of work may be needed to get it to run acceptably fast; and I haven't done the GUI work to realize the potential Light-Table-land advantages yet.
The licensing situation is really unclear. The Kickstarter page says, "In order to download packaged distributions, you'll need a license". But I expect that, if it's open source, I can get a packaged distribution by saying (I'm using Arch Linux):
# pacman -S lighttableI can only hope for eventual PHP integration so it's useful to me also at work.
Use the "Vim: Toggle vim mode" command from the command tab.Also -- very, very exciting work overall -- visionary even. Kudos!
With that said, I could still use some emacs bindings :)
Any chance me, as a non-tester and interested person, gets a "fix" for that?
edit: linking 1 to 0 works so far, but please consider a migration to new version - e.g. chrome did the same some time ago ago[0].
[0] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#...
Looks like there was an issue trying to connect to the project. Here's what we got:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Users\way\.lighttable\plugins\python\ltmain.py", line 12, in <module>
import ltipy
File "C:\Users\way\.lighttable\plugins\python\ltipy.py", line 181
print "no proc"
^which looks like a typical error when running 2.7 code on 3+. Anyone else suffering from the same issue or is something messed up on my end? Running Windows 64-bit, Python 3.3, IPython 0.13.
If there was a decent way to handle dynamic evaluation though, it could certainly be added, and without too much issue I would imagine :)
Also if I am figuring out something OBO (off by one) prone sometimes I use this to double check myself: http://play.golang.org/
Yes, the Go people keep mentioning that. You might as well eat soy and pretend it's a delicious steak.
For people that have used good REPLs, from Lisp machines to iPython, it's not the same thing at all.
You lose your state, you loose context, you loose good introspection, etc etc. And if you try loading stuff that's big (several packages as dependencies etc), the compile time starts adding up too.
1. moving a break point
2. recompile
3. run
4. stopping at new break point
It is an interactive process. You are build pieces of the application bit by bit.
There is no complete application state where to set breakpoints.
I know this is already done in any number of big enterprisey IDEs, but you would surely take a fresh and creative approach.
Go would be a perfect test candidate.
[1]: http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/03/living-in-the-future-star...
[2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aide.ui
I'm very excited with the Python integration. I'm going to try doing some web development with Light Table now. One thing that would be very handy would be support for virtualenvs or requirements files to integrate into workspaces so that we can work on projects without installing all dependancies globally.
$ workon foo
$ /PATH_TO_LT/LightTable.app/Contents/MacOS/node-webkitIn all seriousness, the plugin architecture will certainly allow for exactly that to happen. If you're interested in trying your hand at adding CL, I know a guy who could probably sneak you into the beta when it turns private ;)
I await my lynching. :D
...I can't believe that people use Clojure-the-language over CL-the-language. It seems to have no reason to exist except as a "I hate parens" Lisp-1. The interesting parts of Clojure (i.e., the sequence abstraction design) are replicatable in CL as a library. Extant issues (e.g., cl's map not mapping over vectors)* can be abstracted over with other tools.
While the JVM interop is compelling, I don't understand why the libraries and macros to create similarly compelling interop over ABCL weren't developed instead.
Bluntly, I don't know why Clojure was created as a new language instead of an advanced library over Common Lisp. I appreciate the interest it's been able to drum up in the Lisp family, and I deeply appreciate the libraries people have written for it.
*: I was wrong: map goes over a variety of types: mapcar, mapcan, etc, are common and only operate on lists. Ignorance uncovered and filled in by knowledge.
> a "I hate parens" Lisp-1
Clojure's minimal syntax is, in my opinion, a gigantic improvement over Common Lisp. And I say this as a person who quite likes parens. I feel similarly about Lisp-1s, but that is well trotted territory: Lisp-1s have won.
Parens are overloaded in traditional Lisps for both invocation and grouping. The introduction of vectors with square brackets makes a lot of code a great deal more readable at virtually zero cost: It's still homoiconic. Similarly, the inclusion of curly braces for maps is wonderful, as it makes maps a lot more common in Clojure than they would otherwise be in CL, which is a good thing for most business logic.
> replicatable in CL as a library
Defaults matter. A lot. Presence in a library is insufficient. The fact that seqs et al are in core means that 100% of Clojure libraries use those abstractions. That's a big deal.
> I don't understand why the libraries and macros to create similarly compelling interop over ABCL weren't developed instead
Rich discussed this on the CL mailing lists long before Clojure or even his first attempt, dotLisp, ever existed. See [1] and [2]. In short, interop needs to be planned for at the lowest levels to make it pleasant to use and efficient to execute. And it's not just JVM interop: Clojure was designed for $SOME_HOST interop, so ClojureScript interops as nicely with JavaScript as Clojure does with the JVM. CL would have two different libraries with two different ideas of interop for two different host platforms.
> I don't know why Clojure was created as a new language
I think you have a different definition of the word "language" than I do. Look at PG's Arc. It's built on a scheme implementation. It's not so much a new language by your definition as it is a set of scheme libraries. But that's what a language is: A common base vocabulary encoded with a well known set of syntax and semantics rules. Clojure could be implemented (quite trivially, thanks to the aforementioned careful hosting design) as a set of libraries to CL, but it would still be a new language.
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/3-X76dTw8dI/I... [2] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/3-X76dTw8dI/s...
Snippet from [2]:
If one were starting from scratch,
and supplied a platform like .NET, would one define Lisp the way CL is
defined?
I would hope the answer is 'most definitely not'. For instance, .NET
provides for numbers, characters, strings, arrays, hashtables, exceptions,
namespaces, files, streams, user-defined types, a type hierarchy and
inheritance, I/O, object creation and initialization, reflection etc. Should
a language define its own incompatible versions of these things in such an
environment?And boy do I wish they were overloaded the same way in Clojure. I hate the fact that I have to say
(cond
(some-long-predicate involving multipler-parameters)
(what-to-do has to go-on-the-next-line because-of wrapping)
(here-is-the-next predicate)
[(func1 arg1) ...])
I don't really understand the rationale, tbh (in fact I don't even know what it's supposed to be to try to understand it); somewhere I saw the observation that there's no need for you as a macro writer to make the client of the macro use parens for grouping when you can just call (partition 2 ...) on the arguments, which is true enough (at least, as long as the unpaired args in a larger group (e.g. binding vector) or are the tail of the arguments to the macro, captured as a rest param), but ... I kind of doubt that CL and Scheme went with the form of let, cond, etc. that they did out of convenience for implementation of the relevant macros. And even if that were the original motivation, those forms have other benefits.
The more important point of literal syntax for composites other than lists is the fact that they are resolved at read time. This means you don't need a macro to have grouping. With (some-macro ((f x) (g y))), you need to force expansion inside the parens. Quoting (some-function '((f x) (g x))) requires forcing evaluation in your function. You could use (vector (f x) (g x)), but now that means some-function gets a vector argument and some-macro would get a list argument with first element 'vector. In Clojure, (some-function-or-macro [(f x) (g y)]) both have a vector as an argument because of the read-time behavior of data structure literals. Huge win in my book.
Literal syntax for composites other than lists is totally unrelated to this.
I actually really don't understand why if you had (some-macro ((f x) (g y))) you'd have to "force expansion inside the parens", since well-behaved macros won't expand their arguments. You'd iterate through the elements in the parens, but ... that's what you'd do with clojure-style partition macros, too, you'd just call partition first.
For a function call the obvious choice, and one you see in Scheme/Racket quite frequently, is either `(,(f x) ,(g y)) for your second example, or even (list (f x) (g y)). Yeah, then your macro gets a list whose first element is 'list, but ... so what? Your macro probably shouldn't be looking inside what it receives anyway, and if it does then it should be documented that it expects a literal ((foo bar) (baz quux)) or whatever (just as in Clojure you can't write (let (vector 'a 'b) (+ a b)) and have that work).
Parens are not overloaded in Common Lisp. It's always (function value value ...). And lists are always (). It's an artifact of homoiconicity that the program code can be represented in the same first-class data structures that it manipulates. I think we can all agree that is an advantage.
'()
Re: seq; I don't really see the advantage. Some defaults might be right for certain applications but I prefer to be in control of making that decision.
ABCL interop is working rather well. They even have CLOS support now.
Parenscript generates great Javascript from Common Lisp code. The great thing about Lisp-like languages is that the evaluator can take a description of a process and create a machine capable of emulating that process. This happens to be really useful when experimenting with new languages. There's even a cl-python project to evaluate Python code in Common Lisp.
The great idea of Common Lisp was to bring together under one standard the forest of incompatible lisp implementations. I'm happy to see experimentation in the lisp space but it seems that fragmentation is only going to happen if everyone runs off into the woods to write their own incompatible lisp over things like syntax.
As for $SOME_HOST interop... a fair bit of the language is an artifact of the JVM. LOOP/RECUR is simply because the JVM is probably never going to support TCO (and while not required by a CL implementation it's nearly universal because it makes for efficient recursive programs... a style of program that is rather natural to lisps). The language doesn't have conditions and restarts because of the JVM (though I've heard it posited that it could be possible to implement them on top of exceptions).
Isn't it the case that Clojure and ClojureScript have different libraries with "different ideas" (whatever that means) about interop with their hosts? And ClojurePy yet other ideas about interoperation with Python? The hosts are very different in each case; how could the interoperation not be? (I suppose you could supply the host with a runtime that emulates aspects of the interoperation on the original host---but that's not very interesting!)
(Also, he mentions dotLisp in the post you reference as footnote [1].)
The main thing that Clojure does in terms of being designed for interop is to require the use of host values/objects. There are no wrapper/proxy/delegate/whatever objects. This has big implications. It (unfortunately) means that there is behavior you simply can't have in core, such as reflection or continuations. That's a big part of being interop friendly: Intentionally specifying fewer things. If you have very strict rules for how something like strings behave, then you might wind up in a situation where you need to create a ClojureString class or something like that.
Additionally, the '. (dot) special form is like a giant "INTEROP HERE" sign, which is extremely useful when porting code from CLJ to CLJS. You can literally grep your source for /\./ and find platform specific code.
1)Library support. With Clojure, it's a five minute import to get Bessel functions. When I asked about how to do Bessel functions in 2006, I was told to write it myself. I've heard things have become better since then, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that
2)Immutable data structures. Yes, this can be implemented as a library in CL. However, having it as the default means that I know every non-Java function I call isn't going to break that assumption. If I did find a Bessel function library, I can't assume that it's safe.
3)GUI support. In 2006, I needed to write a GUI application that ran on Windows, Mac, and Linux. PLT Scheme (now racket) had options available, but they weren't pretty. When I went to Common Lisp, I was first directed toward CLX, which wasn't native on Mac or Windows. Someone then suggested McClim, which still needed an X-server on Windows and now seems to be largely dead. It was then suggested that I write my own binding to WXwidgets. I considered that, but I'd then need to write a high level wrapper over those low level bindings.
Comparatively, from the little I've toyed with the Seesaw library from Clojure, it seems to be a beautiful way of handling GUIs.
Okay, I guess this comes down to another library issues.
4)Dotted pairs. The only use I've ever encountered for these is extremely fine tuning performance optimizations, but third party libraries loved surprising me with these at odd moments. I can see how Lisp-1 versus Lisp-2 might be a matter of taste, but I've never heard someone complain that how they missed dotted pairs when working in Scheme or Clojure. They may be a good argument, but I've never heard it.
5) Libraries. I'm sorry that I keep coming back to this point, but I guess it's a big one. Every time I tried to do something interesting in Common Lisp, the recommendation that I was given was to write low level wrappers to three different C libraries. For several of those projects, I found it easier to just cut out the middle man and write the whole damn thing in C. The rest of the time, I wound up writing Lisp that looked almost exactly like C.
Honestly, half of this is because I'm a mediocre programmer. I have no pretensions of greatness. If I was a great programmer, I could see how to make my own DSL that made the interaction of the libraries beautiful, instead of C with more parentheses. However, in scheme or clojure, I can usually find the work of another, better programmer, who has already made that DSL. In Common Lisp, I'm usually told to write it myself. I don't know if that's because all the other Common Lisp programmers are so brilliant that they all write DSLs all day or if it's just because they're all mediocre programmers like myself and no one knows how to do it.
6) Global variables. Every examples of idiomatic Common Lisp code I was delivered was littered with globals. This might be a stylistic decision, but it's one I've never liked. A third of my problems seemed to be solved by setting OPEN-NETWORK-SOCKET-AND-SET-FIRE-TO-PRINTER to 1 and STOP-PRINTER-FIRE to nil. I can see this reliance on globals if you're writing servers, where you have a long running application with lots of state, but I wasn't, so it just made the code harder to reason about.
7)Image based programming. I understand from the SmallTalkers that this is the best way to write code, but I don't get it. What always happened for me was that some global SWITCH-CHARACTER-ENCODING-TO-EBCDIC would get set at some point and all my code would now fail. With a file based language, I'd exit and restart to kill this accidental state and everything would be okay. With the image based code, I'd have to go through the assorted globals and find which one had changed.
The interesting part of Clojure for me is that the sequence abstraction design is part of the standard language distribution and NOT implemented as an optional library.
The major flaw with Lisps is exactly the proliferation of competing, (and frequently half-arsed), custom solutions for stuff that should be built-in and used by all.
I'll take a slightly inferior implementation of something that's standard in a language's libs, over 20 competing solutions or rolling my own, any day of the week.
The big question to me is why people who do not need Java interop are using Clojure. Here are some reasons I can think of:
- The tooling around Clojure feels more familiar to Ruby/Python/Node programmers.
- Ruby/Python programmers need their programs to run slowly so that they can be certain something is happening.
- Cult of personality. Rich Hickey has a lot of great videos and conference presentations. Lisp has no apparent technical or thought leader. Followers need leaders.
- Hubris. The same stupidity that causes organizations to throw out Robert's Rules of Order and then subsequently reinvent non-standard solutions to the problems RR was created to solve in the first place.
P.S. CL's map works with all sequences, including vectors.
It's less than one fifth of the age of CL, yet it has vastly superior libraries. Part of this is the Java interop, but at this point, even Clojure native libraries tend to be just better than CL libraries.
The reason for this is probably the common focus on good, sensible defaults and less on "everyone can easily roll their own". Having a set of basic, sensible data structures and abstractions that everyone share is not the same thing as "well, it's easy for anyone to do this". The idea that CL is flawless because it's so powerful that all flaws can be fixed by users is a disease, not a strength. It leads to a community where work is massively duplicated because all libraries are designed for a specific use, and every user needs to bend them to his uses.
If you think libraries are more important than having a truly interactive development environment that is Lisp 100% of the way down, you are missing out hugely on power and expressiveness. It has to be experienced to be understood. You're only fooling yourself and other people by thinking that Clojure is a "good enough" Lisp.
You do realize that the vast majority of all the things that need to be done are essentially "library spelunking"? Not every programmer can spend his time doing AI research. A lot of the things that need to be done are "easy" but very work-intensive, and can be made much, much faster by good libraries. The majority of programming jobs are still essentially crud apps with a db backend, and CL is simply just a bad language to implement those in.
> If you think libraries are more important than having a truly interactive development environment that is Lisp 100% of the way down, you are missing out hugely on power and expressiveness. It has to be experienced to be understood.
I have experienced it, and understood it. And after 6 years of it, I switched to Java, because that's actually a more productive language to get things done in. Because even if the language itself is shit, things like internationalization and input validation have good libraries so I don't have to spend weeks working on getting all the little details right. Clojure buys me that, and a better language.
Clojure may not be a good enough lisp, but it's certainly better than CL.
I think you basically answered your own question :)
>JVM interop is compelling
If someone sat down and really massaged it, the currently clunky interop there could be just as shiny as Clojure.
Yes, a half-arsed, barely supported interop. And slow to top.
>If someone sat down and really massaged it, the currently clunky interop there could be just as shiny as Clojure.
I rest my case.
Although the community seems to prefer the port of Iterate: https://github.com/nathell/clj-iter
For instance, when it comes to Python, PyCharm (http://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/features/index.html) seems far more powerful -- it provides live debugging/breakpoints (with the ability to change attributes of running code -- even for server code), code introspection, documentation browsing, refactoring, JavaScript debugging (integrated in FireFox), VirtualEnv support, tight integration with Django/Flask for templates, etc... And it's fast
So aside from the look and feel, what does LT have to offer?
The more tools the better, but I just wonder if anybody who has used a modern robust IDE can offer a comparison?
I am really amazed with how well codemirror emulates basic vim key bindings [3], as I prefer to use ctrl-c rather than escape and I often find that vim emulators either do not support ctrl-c or do not support it well.
[1]http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/04/15/light-tables-numbers... [2]http://codemirror.net/ [3]http://codemirror.net/demo/vim.html
... all of my code is on remote machines. Either in a VM or on a server, far, far away.
Is there a way to use SFTP to open files for editing?
I realise I am an outlier. That said I can always just manually refresh the browser window on the other screen which I currently do anyway.
I dont suppose anyone else has a method of dealing with this currently?
Extensions were mentioned on the blog about a year ago (http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/04/15/light-tables-numbers...), but as far as I can tell, they're still not here yet :(
I would also pre-order now if I could.
Nice work.
Edited to add: this is the first time I've properly tried LightTable and oh my god what a gorgeous piece of software. It's glorious. Just.. yeah. Job well done! :)
Just confirmed matplotlib/pylab plotting working with Anaconda Python distribution. (To get LightTable to not use the system python, I had to go through some hoops... creating an environment.plist didn't seem to work.)
The dot-completion seems like it still needs work, but it's pretty neat to have an alternative web-based REPL front-end to the IPython kernel than just IPython Notebook.
I tried to create a ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist file per the instructions here[1], but that didn't seem to work and I haven't bothered to fiddle with it more.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOS...
And I know it's shameless, but my LIVEditor project also allows you to "navigate to any page you want and start live modifying the it", I just made a 1-minute demo video here: http://youtu.be/t91IoDxo9aY
The UI font appears to be unchangeable. I can understand the motivation for that, but it renders pretty badly on my system.
2. fill in the dependencies in project.clj
3. open your src/core.clj (or whatever) in LT
4. start coding
LT will automatically launch a client and connect to it. In between lein will have seamlessly fetched the dependencies for you (this happens automatically each time you launch or relaunch a client).
You can do manual (C-Enter) or live (Instarepl) inline evaluation in any of your project file or even connect a new fresh repl to the client to experiment from scratch.
It is also pretty nice to have an Instarepl where you can see live changes, either in your source files or in a separate repl. Don't forget that if your paths and namespaces match you can require your namespaces at will.
The node process exited.
The node process you were connected to suddenly quit. Check the console for more information.
Error: No protocol method IDeref.-deref defined for type nullrror: No protocol method IDeref.-deref defined for type null: at Error (<anonymous>) at cljs.core.missing_protocol (file:///Users/jk/.lighttable/js/bootstrap.js:1384:10)
Additionally, I was able to get the node repl to successfully connect and launch whenever I directed it at a JS file which was compiled from Coffeescript.
I followed this and got it working.
http://serverfault.com/questions/16355/how-to-set-global-pat...
[1] replace here means "being as powerful as", not actually converting Emacs users, most which are happy with Emacs..
It is true that both tools are mutable and that hypothetically their potential use cases will overlap entirely.
The reason this will not occur though is a consequence of one tool aiming to provide a general environment by design and the other tool aiming to provide a general environment for a specific use.
Less abstractly, consider the difference between having a factory which produces a specific item and having a factory which can produce any factory.
Possibly the specific item the factory produces is sufficient for the recipients of the specific item, and further that specific item may even make other items the recipient possessed moot.
However, the factory which can produce any factory can still (and possibly already has done so) produce the specific item.
Emacs' design (and Light Table's) is much more similar in breadth to the factory which produces other factories.
Sublime Text is more similar in scope to a factory which produces a single item.
The difference in design choice leads to Sublime Text and other text editors being comparable in features and it is also why Sublime Text can replace Emacs' text editing functions.
At the same time the design choice also leads to Emacs being a RSS client but Sublime Text not also having that functionality (or being reasonable to expect), despite the potential for the functionality to exist in both tools.
The difference between the two goals is why Light Table is much more intriguing to me than Sublime Text is despite the utility Sublime Text provides and how well executed Sublime Text is.
EDIT: Fix - sudo rm -Rf ~/.lighttable/
[I'm Light Table backer, just want to know, if it is time yet to try it out... ;) ]
So happy to finally see python support.
What is used for the javascript rendering? I assume since they are using the chrome dev tools they are embedding chromium into Lighttable?
FTW.
edit: also, I've successfully nuked the app at least once by evaluating document.write (or similar) in the IDE. heh
alert('foo');
Produces 'SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier'. I'm looking forward to the kinks being ironed out.
will get fixed tomorrow.
Also my "return" is not updated automaticall.
Pleaseeeeeee
Deleted comment
But search/replace… even notepad, textedit and nano have it.
Anyway, I was initially convinced you'd never deliver and you consistently proved me wrong during the last months. Bravo and good luck!