From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:29:14 +0200 Message-ID: <5777A58A.7010603@cs.ucla.edu> References: <83y45lu2up.fsf@gnu.org> <54f5d80c-f20b-31aa-b438-401984fcb5b8@online.de> <874m89crw3.fsf@red-bean.com> <58c6fa18-d636-1498-8d37-b435c4ee8ec9@online.de> <83r3bdth7f.fsf@gnu.org> <06dfdf82-c469-8abe-15ab-22a96e64070b@online.de> <20160701175515.GA2618@acm.fritz.box> <20160701185704.GB2618@acm.fritz.box> <5776D31A.6050700@lanl.gov> <0606cae0-93b6-7e4a-c760-411326ac6970@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467459020 733 80.91.229.3 (2 Jul 2016 11:30:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= , Davis Herring Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 02 13:30:08 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bJJ7g-0003pH-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:30:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37966 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJJ7f-0001Vs-EQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 07:30:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44148) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJJ76-0001Vn-Vf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 07:29:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJJ75-0000BP-2O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 07:29:31 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:36225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bJJ70-00008P-9W; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 07:29:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABA51613A2; Sat, 2 Jul 2016 04:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Nd0tI9FKHSUU; Sat, 2 Jul 2016 04:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EC7161581; Sat, 2 Jul 2016 04:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GZP90ksZdIo9; Sat, 2 Jul 2016 04:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.232] (unknown [2.224.134.180]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A41171613A2; Sat, 2 Jul 2016 04:29:21 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 In-Reply-To: <0606cae0-93b6-7e4a-c760-411326ac6970@online.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205086 Archived-At: On 07/02/2016 08:34 AM, Andreas R=F6hler wrote: > My suggestion is about re-considerating, reversing a kind of dogmatic=20 > pro-elisp policy - as I felt it. Perhaps you felt more dogmatism than actually exists. As I understand=20 it, the attitude is more to prefer Elisp, but to use C when Elisp is not=20 technically feasible or when performance would be too slow in Elisp. Some inertia is involved; when something is first written in one=20 language and thoroughly debugged, there is a natural and understandable=20 reluctance to change it to the other. So the issue typically comes up=20 more often when considering a new feature or a major change, and the=20 merits of Elisp vs C can be discussed on a change-by-change basis. If=20 you want this process to move forward I suggest proposing a specific=20 change along these lines; I think you'll find less dogmatism than the=20 above comment would suggest.