Re: Project systems (again)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:58:54 -0700
> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > I see your point.  However, EDE was added to Emacs with the intent
> > that it serves as basis for developing features such as what you have
> > in mind.  If there's a reasonably practical way of basing your project
> > on EDE, I think we should explore that possibility first, even if it
> > requires more work on the EDE infrastructure side, because not doing
> > so would waste the effort of integrating EDE into Emacs.
> 
> I was afraid of an argument of this form --- it's just the sunken costs
> fallacy, isn't it?

It is only a fallacy if the decision to include EDE was mistaken.

> The fact that effort has been put into EDE shouldn't influence our
> evaluations of present alternatives.

Indeed, it shouldn't.  But EDE is one such alternative, and IMO we
should give some weight to past decisions, because AFAIK they are
generally taken after some careful consideration.  IOW, we should not
discard them without discussing and re-evaluating them.

> I don't think using EDE as a base would reduce the amount of needed
> work. I actually think it would increase it.

If you are right that using EDE increases the amount of work, then I
think we should remove EDE from Emacs, because it would be just
ballast then.  But I suggest to hear from the EDE developers, and
hopefully also from Chong (CC'ed), who AFAIR worked on including EDE,
before we reach such conclusions.