Re: Emacs ffi

["Björn Bidar" <bjorn.bidar@thaodan.de>]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2024 at 8:07 AM
>> From: "Andrea Corallo" <acorallo@gnu.org>
>> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
>> Cc: suhailsingh247@gmail.com, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, nicolas@n16f.net, arthur.miller@live.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: Emacs ffi
>>
>> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>> 
>> >> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 at 8:32 AM
>> >> From: "Andrea Corallo" <acorallo@gnu.org>
>> >> To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
>> >> Cc: suhailsingh247@gmail.com, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, nicolas@n16f.net, arthur.miller@live.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Emacs ffi
>> >>
>> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>
>> >> >> Cc: Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com>,  gerd.moellmann@gmail.com,
>> >> >>   nicolas@n16f.net,  arthur.miller@live.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> >> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:31:49 -0400
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The way we do it when loading modules requires the _loaded_ library to
>> >> >> > declare itself compatible, by exporting a symbol of a certain name.
>> >> >> > That is an action by the library we load, not by the Lisp program
>> >> >> > which loads it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But we could do the same for our hypothetical ffi machinery, that is:
>> >> >> `define-ffi-library' could fail if the shared library is not exporting
>> >> >> the predetermined symbol we expect no?
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course.  But how many such libraries do that?
>> >>
>> >> Dunno, ATM very few if not zero I guess.
>> >
>> > If there are no existing libraries that export the required symbol, it
>> > raises legitimate concerns about the feasibility and utility of the
>> > approach. Essentially, if the mechanism put in place is not supported by
>> > any available libraries, then the mechanism is ineffective and overly
>> > idealistic.
>> >
>> > There exists a large disconnect between theoretical compliance and
>> > practical usability. If the requirements for compliance are so stringent
>> > or specific that no existing libraries can meet them, then it could be
>> > argued that the approach is not grounded in the reality of software
>> > development.
>> 
>> I disagree, this is normal evolution for software ex: every time a new
>> programming language is created (or a new feature is added to it)
>> compilers implement the related support, even if no programs are using
>> that language or that new extension at present.  Is this a large
>> disconnect between theoretical compliance and practical usability?  No,
>> is just that users will come later.
>> 
>> If Emacs requires the symbol maybe compatible libraries will just export
>> it afterwards (given the cost is close to zero). - Andrea
>
> It is imposing an additional requirement that isn't typically necessary 
> in most other environments.
>
> Typically, mathematical libraries are designed to be widely applicable
> and used across various platforms and applications. Requiring these
> libraries to export a specific symbol or be designed with editor
> compatibility in mind is an unnecessary hurdle. Developers of libraries
> do not prioritize compatibility with editors like Emacs.

> To overcome the hurdle that Emacs is bringing upon itself, of requiring
> GPL compliance for mathematical libraries, it should provide its own
> built-in library as suggested by E. Berg. It is the pragmatic way to do
> it.  I disagreed with Berg initially, but I can now understand his
> frustrations with the whole emacs design.

> Some free software simply cannot be used with GPL-licensed software like 
> Emacs without violating the terms of one or both licenses.  Requiring GPL 
> compliance for integration is banal.  Particularly when Emacs is not the 
> one providing the library.  It will be the user who will be using.  One 
> simply cannot accuse a user to breaking any license if the library is not
> GPL compliant.  The landscape of free software licenses is diverse, with 
> many different licenses with many not compatible with each other. You’d 
> have to put every teenager in the world in jail, and you can’t do that ! 


I think GPL compliance could be checked but I agree we can't require
external libraries where Emacs is the minority to impose such
requirements. Well technically we can but who will honor them? Does the
FFI interface have a system for such things?
I think a warning or a "do you really want this" would be the least
intrusive way.
Similarly to spoiler warnings in media when there's graphic depections
of violence: Do you really want to enable this, the libraries could
restrict your freedom or similar. 

I think the XEmacs implementation of FFI would be a good start to look
how such an interface could be added.


> But this message does not resonate within the minds of the core emacs maintainers, 
> with the trend continuing for many years to come.  Some believe that everybody 
> in the world doesn’t get it about free software, and even that everybody in the 
> world is a crook and that everybody in the world is trying to steal free software 
> and make bad use of it.  I do not approve of such ideas.  Many think they know
> everything about copyright infringement, but never been thrown out of court on 
> a motion to dismiss.  

I don't really want to go into the politics besides that I have seen
worse on this list from user or maintainer such as to tell user to not
use gender neutral pronouns if they so chose to do so.

> It's always the same, you'll get prima donna maintainers who are at the same 
> level of priests, who preach a lot about licensing scenarios.  But have never 
> been there, never done it, but preaching a lot about what others can do and what 
> they cannot do.  Too much coercion was surely not what we wanted to apply.
>
> As customary I get "Your message was deemed inappropriate by the moderator."
> from emacs-devel-owner@gnu.org.  I wonder who it is.  Actually I wonder why
> I wonder.
>
> We need to understand how that working together purposively brings us to the 
> point where everyone is not afraid of free software anymore and we are not 
> worried about their complying anymore.  We are just all engaging and leading 
> the task of making free software.

I had this experience in the past too where some judge first and then
read. I.e. the recent discussion about OAuth2 where there was a
compliant that we shouldn't implement support for non-free platforms
even thou that wasn't really the point.

Sometimes it would be better if the more experienced contributors would
try to be more welcoming or helping when it comes to new contributors.