From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bozhidar Batsov" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding Flycheck to NonGNU ELPA Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 20:08:15 +0200 Message-ID: <72490bec-175b-46b6-aaf9-153b3c242b70@app.fastmail.com> References: <41bdb94a-3f9c-4b46-b061-b0c5e31a403e@app.fastmail.com> <871q98bb7q.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=2437e3f71d6d4c13bd36e4c90b5c4244 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="897"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-144-ge5821d614e-fm-20240125.002-ge5821d61 Cc: "Emacs Devel" To: "Philip Kaludercic" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 19 19:09:35 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rc856-000AYC-C2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:09:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc84H-0008Aw-TB; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc84G-000888-8P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fhigh2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([103.168.172.153]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc84D-0003F8-TV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:40 -0500 Original-Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.48]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8185611400CE; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:36 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from imap52 ([10.202.2.102]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=batsov.dev; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1708366116; x=1708452516; bh=66qqHhcsTA +sEdNjrZiQ1c8PFcCiCyeIrynCIC8I5oc=; b=yY3QlRWCCWz138vWoUWIY1kLUg sSLa087XrIjC8Q8NXl55/bzgEiSvYnIoAySXwbGCVNAua/VimBwE51ptXsN/+euw qZvhWyvVdwqhbwgCmbRAVLZoDpo8Y00XrJDUX4PE6m0vxg4C1Ydj5VTiteXPUCud EVEf0QQzjYJQovrbJ56TNxmHYbgpgFvNxfJi4dgIspOj11tlOfadOmEAsdlsTeiA 3oOu9TXT+3qXfUqPj9Zb4nEtZjE9yLcQdAoK7f2FltQ8Y72IPwSi/XpTV1ksr9TO Xc2OyBkYb0xviWIOd3lml7Sr7YjIrRaqro24mTGuyIcduFkgfOpKchCXl0rg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1708366116; x=1708452516; bh=66qqHhcsTA+sEdNjrZiQ1c8PFcCi CyeIrynCIC8I5oc=; b=J299q/Y5+Vf3YP/FT3mDn09VuqWQe+naZ2dxI5cL10tq lqd3PxoMj8uXTlbo0tJ7p7PyOfWPveLGA6kd+p0BopL46hc013i3m7ScA30H8yto HmfwosOrWXR4yjDJTqjxlGAHPc3vKInI9s7W2RZpce4D9WsdWwClwDsPDpLMjSS0 uJrjwjbWy1LMiS4x1ige4klXmHcfFOAiCQA9UW9q2btWaf5S4+F/lG3FcKZp60wG UAmIt7vpEhbiuI4CymZttRCZjALqtGLxjvpK7pC8kSkHiajgHuJAcg2LqpVzX7sm x+1GopYUTKuGR34ek+zc0GiGara7wQjzWrpbWGIEBg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdekgddutdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsegrtderreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfueho iihhihgurghruceurghtshhovhdfuceosghoiihhihgurghrsegsrghtshhovhdruggvvh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheetleduuedvtdduueeiieejleeitddvfeegteetuefh heeugeelgfdufeekleffnecuffhomhgrihhnpehflhihtghhvggtkhdrohhrghdpghhith hhuhgsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf rhhomhepsghoiihhihgurghrsegsrghtshhovhdruggvvh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i025946a9:Fastmail Original-Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3AAF8C60097; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:08:36 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface In-Reply-To: <871q98bb7q.fsf@posteo.net> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=103.168.172.153; envelope-from=bozhidar@batsov.dev; helo=fhigh2-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:316360 Archived-At: --2437e3f71d6d4c13bd36e4c90b5c4244 Content-Type: text/plain There is a detailed comparison here https://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/user/flycheck-versus-flymake.html but many of the differences are probably not important to many people. You might remember that before Flycheck, Flymake was in a state of disarray and abandoment for years, so I'm pretty sure Flycheck making it almost obsolete back then was the trigger for some modernization around Emacs 26.1. And the contributors to Flycheck and Flymake were always pretty different - part of the reason Sebastien (the original author of Flycheck) quit Emacs were some attacks he was getting on emacs-devel. Many people are so off-put by the discourse there, that they want to have as little as possible with it. And that's the real value of alternative packages IMO - they allow us to harvest the energy of all contributors. Btw, flymake-flycheck was created only because Joao wouldn't agree to provide Flycheck support in Eglot (I know this from the author of flymake-flycheck). The whole situation with Elgot was a classic example of the hostility in Emacs towards packages some maintainers dislike... (https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot/issues/42) > but considering that > more and more people rely on LSP for the information (and Eglot supports > Flymake OOTB), I don't know how valuable this is. Btw, Eglot is not the only LSP client for Emacs. :-) lsp-mode users flycheck by default for its error diagnostics. I'm not a big LSP user, though, and often prefer the simplicity of just shelling out to whatever lint tools I need. You probably know that Flycheck is one of the most download packages on MELPA, so it has plenty of happy users. I'm one of them and that's why I took over the maintenance of the project. I felt that NonGNU ELPA existed to make it easier for popular stuff to be installed by users, but it seems to me MELPA won't be going away any time soon. On Mon, Feb 19, 2024, at 7:44 PM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > "Bozhidar Batsov" writes: > > > Hey everyone, > > > > Just wanted to ask if there's any interested in adding Flycheck > > (https://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/), a popular alternative to > > Flymake, to NonGNU ELPA? > > > > You can find the codebase here https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck > > There's also some integration with Eglot https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck-eglot > > > > I'm not sure what's the stance of adding alternatives to built-in > > packages in general, but I think providing some alternatives to the > > end users is not a bad thing overall. > > My main question is what advantage Flycheck has over Flymake. I > understand it has a database of tools built-in, but considering that > more and more people rely on LSP for the information (and Eglot supports > Flymake OOTB), I don't know how valuable this is. In addition to that, > there are projects like > > https://github.com/mohkale/flymake-collection > https://github.com/purcell/flymake-flycheck > > that could help bridge the gap. > > --2437e3f71d6d4c13bd36e4c90b5c4244 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is a deta= iled comparison here https://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/user/fl= ycheck-versus-flymake.html but many of the differences are probably = not important to many people. You might remember that before Flycheck, F= lymake was in a state of disarray and abandoment for years, so I'm prett= y sure Flycheck making it almost obsolete back then was the trigger for = some modernization around Emacs 26.1. And the contributors to Flycheck a= nd Flymake were always pretty different - part of the reason Sebastien (= the original author of Flycheck) quit Emacs were some attacks he was get= ting on emacs-devel.

Many people are so of= f-put by the discourse there, that they want to have as little as possib= le with it. And that's the real value of alternative packages IMO - they= allow us to harvest the energy of all contributors.

=
Btw, flymake-flycheck was created only because Joao wouldn't = agree to provide Flycheck support in Eglot (I know this from the author = of flymake-flycheck). The whole situation with Elgot was a classic examp= le of the hostility in Emacs towards packages some maintainers dislike..= . (https://git= hub.com/joaotavora/eglot/issues/42)

but considering that
more and more people rely on LSP for the information (and Eglot s= upports
Flymake OOTB), I don't know how valuable this is.<= br>

Btw, Eglot is not the only LSP= client for Emacs. :-) lsp-mode users flycheck by default for its error = diagnostics. I'm not a big LSP user, though, and often prefer the simpli= city of just shelling out to whatever lint tools I need.
=
You probably know that Flycheck is one of the most downlo= ad packages on MELPA, so it has plenty of happy users. I'm one of them a= nd that's why I took over the maintenance of the project. I felt that No= nGNU ELPA existed to make it easier for popular stuff to be installed by= users, but it seems to me MELPA won't be going away any time soon.
=

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024, at 7:44 PM, Philip Kalud= ercic wrote:
"Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@= batsov.dev> writes:

> Hey everyon= e,
>
> Just wanted to ask if there's a= ny interested in adding Flycheck
> (https://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/), a= popular alternative to
> Flymake, to NonGNU ELPA?
<= /div>
>
> You can find the codebase here https://github.com/flyche= ck/flycheck
> There's also some integration with Eg= lot https://= github.com/flycheck/flycheck-eglot
>
= > I'm not sure what's the stance of adding alternatives to built-in
> packages in general, but I think providing some altern= atives to the
> end users is not a bad thing overall.

My main question is what advantage Flycheck = has over Flymake.  I
understand it has a database of = tools built-in, but considering that
more and more people = rely on LSP for the information (and Eglot supports
Flymak= e OOTB), I don't know how valuable this is.  In addition to that,
there are projects like