From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 09:36:37 +0200 Message-ID: <83vbvyv08q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87vbvzcjv9.fsf@engster.org> <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393659408 17677 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2014 07:36:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 07:36:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 01 08:36:56 2014 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 1WJeTf-0006g2-JX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 08:36:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54506 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJeTe-0003dC-Qm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:36:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40348) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJeTV-0003d4-Vy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:36:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJeTQ-0007wC-4h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:36:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:35752) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJeTJ-0007tW-Lq; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:36:33 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N1Q00A00XQJ3P00@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 09:34:56 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N1Q005IMYE8W250@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 09:34:56 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169971 Archived-At: > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:31:53 +0100 > Cc: Emacs developers > > It would be interesting to measure (somehow ;-) whether that "Emacs > leverage" is enough to preserve GCC's importance. I mean, if using the > clang libraries allows much powerful, developer-friendly environments > for C/C++ programmers, do we think that a significant number of them > will still choose GCC because of Emacs? If the answer is "yes", > Richard's position strenghtens GCC without prejudice for Emacs. If the > answer is "not", that position hurts Emacs without helping GCC. I actually don't understand why are we talking about compilers as the only viable infrastructure for the features being discussed. IMNSHO, it is bad design to ask users to install a particular compiler, be it GCC or clang, just to be able to have decent editing capabilities for a program source. What next? shall we require LibreOffice to be able to edit text files conveniently? We already have elaborate infrastructure for this kind of features: CEDET and in particular Semantic. Moreover, we included CEDET in Emacs several releases ago precisely _because_ we wanted to move in the direction of making Emacs a better IDE. If we need more of what is in ECB and the upstream CEDET, we can bring that in. This is IMO the preferred direction: make Emacs features depend on nothing but Emacs packages. Then all this prolonged discussion about GCC vs clang is a moot point, and we also gain independence of other projects' priorities and policies as a nice bonus. If we need policy decisions in this matter, _that_ is the only one that should be made. To me, it is almost a no-brainer; I wonder why it is not clear-cut to others here.