From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: position on changing defaults? Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:55:34 +0100 Message-ID: <8563w1xzop.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <200803050637.m256bXL3008361@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204719100 4826 80.91.229.12 (5 Mar 2008 12:11:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:11:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 05 13:12:01 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JWsTR-0004a8-Qx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:11:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWsSu-0007W7-AS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWsSn-0007U3-1a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWsSl-0007Sp-Nr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWsSk-0007SV-KG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JWsSk-0007IU-3p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JWsSj-0002ye-LK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:11:09 -0500 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id AF5D71C162CC; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:55:34 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <200803050637.m256bXL3008361@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:37:33 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91369 Archived-At: Dan Nicolaescu writes: > One reason to ask if there's a policy in this direction is that > absolutely ANY change will make someone scream bloody murder. (just > remember that there was resistance even to turning on > global-font-lock-mode by default, which is something that the vast > majority of users want). And people that oppose change tend to be > extremely vocal. You certainly sport a selective memory. The reason global-font-lock-mode was not turned on by default was that there were large performance problems in a number of cases. Those were addressed by and by, and when global-font-lock-mode was in a shape where it would not obliterate the usability of Emacs for large pretty standard use cases, then it was finally adopted. It would not have been an improvement if global-font-lock-mode would have been made the default before this had been tackled satisfactorily. Having the font-lock proponents actually work hard on making the code acceptable to those who don't crave font-lock-mode that much but need tolerable performance for large cases: this has been very important and contributed to the quality of Emacs code. We don't want to get into the situation where the editor gets bogged down by a legacy of great half-baked and partly unmaintained features. This is to some degree what I perceive as having happened with XEmacs. Getting features to a full-quality state before enabling them is only sane. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum