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: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:03:16 +0100 Message-ID: <877fwxpb63.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <87vbkovhh7.fsf@engster.org> <87387rvobr.fsf@engster.org> <83ppat84hk.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106143933.0090bc83@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3v77ij6.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106154539.3d0752c4@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq4ype3z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20150108083211.5a85a077@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420730127 14865 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2015 15:15:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Richard Stallman , deng@randomsample.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 08 16:15:21 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 1Y9Eck-0003aG-UH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:03:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46436 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9Eck-0006ae-Ek for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:03:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9EcU-0006Zi-0N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:03:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9EcP-0005ka-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:03:29 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59789) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9EcP-0005kW-8M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:03:25 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38725 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9EcH-00057K-7K; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:03:17 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9529DF2B7; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:03:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20150108083211.5a85a077@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (Perry E. Metzger's message of "Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:32:11 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:181063 Archived-At: "Perry E. Metzger" writes: > The long term result of all of this may very well be to do exactly the > opposite of what you want -- to convince compiler researchers that > LLVM is the only serious platform for their work, and even worse, to > convince developers in general that free software is too hard to use > and that non-free software is the way for them to get their work done. LLVM is not non-free software. It is non-copyleft software. The compiler researchers you are talking about are using free software, but their work is ultimately also enabling non-free software that can no longer be used in open research. For the academics, we are not talking about the difficulties of using free software vs non-free software but rather about using (and consequently also producing) copylefted software vs non-copylefted software: actual non-free software is hard to work with and write about anyway. Academia of course is also set up to serve industries with "standard" production, marketing, and licensing models. >> If you want to convince me generating the whole AST is safe, you have >> to understand my concern and take it seriously. > > We do indeed understand I think, and take it seriously. The issue is a > real one. I think the distinction is the rest of us see the tradeoff > differently than you do. Most of the "if only $x, then magically $y" scenarios don't really work as thoroughly as people imagine and end up a tempest in a teapot. I=A0suspect that there would be a lot more catching up to do apart from unencumbering module/data interfaces into GCC. However, we _do_ apparently have people chomping at the bit to improve the integration of GCC into Emacs as a programming editor which have serious problems getting a workable roadmap agreed on, and the mere necessity for getting everything agreed upon in advance is a real detriment: most work requires exploring a number of technical dead ends before finding a productive path, and when each of those dead ends requires a big upfront fight, the perceived cost in disappointment and lost efforts is much higher. We are losing contact with academia, that's true. I don't see a short-term fix for that. But we are losing also contact with willing hackers who'd actually want to work on Emacs/GCC integration and who'd be perfectly willing to just leave the legal considerations in the hand of the FSF but who are barred from working on the implementation. And that's really worrying. I think there's too much baby in the bathwater we are throwing out here. --=20 David Kastrup