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: IDE Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:55:57 +0300 Message-ID: <83zizrrqs2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> <83fv1r3gzp.fsf@gnu.org> <83bncf3f9k.fsf@gnu.org> <5610E0BC.8090902@online.de> <83si5r106e.fsf@gnu.org> <831td9z18h.fsf@gnu.org> <5612E996.7090700@yandex.ru> <83bnc7tavr.fsf@gnu.org> <87pp0ngksh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444470982 6845 80.91.229.3 (10 Oct 2015 09:56:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: adatgyujto@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 10 11:56:08 2015 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 1Zkqsq-0004Fs-26 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:56:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44258 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zkqsp-0006G0-1D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:56:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58050) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zkqsl-0006Fl-9q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:56:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zkqsk-0003rd-7l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:56:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:51491) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zkqsg-0003qj-3g; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:55:58 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NW000J000HVCX00@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:53:23 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NW000ACS0SYE9A0@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:53:23 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87pp0ngksh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> 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:191106 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: Tom , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:00:46 +0200 > > attempts of letting GCC similarly output AST data were rejected as > making it too easy to support non-free applications (obviously, if > Emacs can use GCC for purposes of syntax analysis from the command > line, so can anybody else). That's not how that discussion ended. It ended by Richard saying he wanted to study the issue in more depth, before making his decision. In any case, libcc1 is a fait accompli, for several months at least, and still no one (AFAIK) investigated whether it can serve as basis for any of the IDE-related features. > You get the drift. A number of would-be contributors, partly with > solutions or the impetus and skills for creating them, finally went > elsewhere in disgust rather than trying to figure out the maze of which > interoperations between GNU applications were acceptable and which not. Yes, that's the "hurt feelings" part of my previous message. I agree that you need to have some serious will power, perseverance, and sometimes just stubbornness to get stuff like that done. I still hope motivated individuals with enough of that will emerge. > So "no one is working on that, though everyone is talking" is sort of an > unfair characterization because it implies that no one was willing to > put his money and time where his mouth is. Well, they are not willing badly enough. Sorry for being blunt, but that's my opinion, being the one who did something similar, for 10 years, with a task that, given its size and complexity, was clearly beyond my humble talents. To this day, I still don't understand how I succeeded. > So people's hands are bound until a complete plan has been worked out > and/or blessed by Richard No one's hands are bound. Whoever is motivated enough will find a way to bypass the restrictions and limitations. It certainly means more work, but that's life. > and shouting "no one is working on that" is disingenuous. It's a simple fact. There's nothing disingenuous in reiterating facts. If people are unhappy about such a blunt representation of the facts, then that's fine by me: I actually want people to become unhappy, because that just might cause someone to stop complaining and start working.