>it might be fun to represent lisp code in a treemap
Wow, yeah, that's a really interesting idea. Is there just one (good) way to map a codebase? Many?
It seems like a bad idea at first glance, since the map shows, at any level, more things with less context-per-thing when compared to straight text. It seems totally natural to use it for profiling. Refactoring would be a lot more grokable if it could all be visualized at once.
But how would it work for scanning/editing & digging through documentation?
I very much like the mwe-color-box.el example. Is something like that possible for backquoting? The quoting-levels would be much easier to see with nested background shading. I'll have to try it at home.
Not upset, just tired of ignorant programmers who get off on complaining, and inventing solutions to imaginary problems (bad syntax? ooh, clever visualization!) rather than actually writing code. By the way, you didn't answer the question -- how much Lisp code have you written, "javajosh"?
Wow, yeah, that's a really interesting idea. Is there just one (good) way to map a codebase? Many?
It seems like a bad idea at first glance, since the map shows, at any level, more things with less context-per-thing when compared to straight text. It seems totally natural to use it for profiling. Refactoring would be a lot more grokable if it could all be visualized at once. But how would it work for scanning/editing & digging through documentation?