From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jambunathan K Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:27:15 +0530 Message-ID: <87mwgwez7o.fsf@gmail.com> References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87sir336qn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140301215057.GA19461@thyrsus.com> <87fvn1y0vx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87fvn0senq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8761nusb90.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1394603841 15863 80.91.229.3 (12 Mar 2014 05:57:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 05:57:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, dak@gnu.org, Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 12 06:57:29 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 1WNcAQ-0006ef-Mk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:57:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58740 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNcAQ-0002Gs-Ay for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:57:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39223) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNcA2-0001ac-MX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNc9x-0006nr-A4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]:50987) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNc9x-0006mi-1B; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 01:56:57 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id rp16so609328pbb.40 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:56:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=PbbDSeTwMi3q6d92Qu7KaykZLEYJ3bQPv0knEeEPR5A=; b=X3w59Wl690DFf7AEVPQdbN3adrP5c/bX0UypH3C97zbmCtLd/hdGk8MjoHHZY5hx8X QgzhqMZpzJGeqi9hbopDQC/m2dGjjUJplKKbEL50vqJb5qr0Wv72E2SLlH3IDHgobyK9 bGBgANcoN4OgxkuUwGytQFC9uuTgov908OZls/Pt9b48oTI4Uo8RDK4FgrGS2Z/Qabbf c2j2H9xlsCK7uF/l91RFfm/hffYC3icvsTjEoyO+kL0frCcQnwIUqRna3n3aamZ02br0 VJOQyHDCs1lXnVAJJiGArWw10Mf0YCwXgYVeuPU3TMkswloScrVcQX3DEp97RSRFZj+5 mUXA== X-Received: by 10.66.102.39 with SMTP id fl7mr2574631pab.43.1394603815208; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from debian-6.05 ([115.241.56.205]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kc9sm3377405pbc.25.2014.03.11.22.56.50 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:56:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:38:54 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235 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:170285 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> But if as a result of those measures, all development moves from GCC to >> Clang/LLVM, this will be a pyrrhic victory :-( >> That's what life is like. If you fight, you might lose. If you >> surrender, you lose for certain. > > No. There can be other measures that don't lead to a loss and don't > lead to a pyrrhic victory either. > > But I think you'd first need to define what you'd consider as a loss. > AFAICT, you seem to consider "Using GCC in a proprietary product" as > a loss. That's only true if the alternative was "making that product > Free". If the alternative is "Using Clang in a proprietary product" > then I think "Using GCC in a proprietary product" is definitely not > a loss (especially if the GPLv3 works as it should, making it possible > for the user to replace/fix/improve the GCC part of the proprietary > product). Stefan, As a layman user I would like to understand what this discussion is about. Is it about: 1. Making new features available within Emacs? - completion - refactoring 2. Making new features through *a specific* means. - llvm only - gcc only 3. Improving and stregthening the overall ecosystem. Hyper-linking to other Free-software out there. - co-opeation with GCC - co-opeation with LLVM If the focus of this thread is (1), it is better to invite CEDET developers and ask for their inputs. It bothers me that CEDET is not really taking off. As for (2) and (3), I have no observations to make. It is better to clarify (for the benefit of spectators) which of the three aspects is being discussed - (1), (2) or (3). >From my own observations, it seems like (3) is taken up specifically wrt llvm. Shouldn't (1) merit equal attention? Implication of (3) is more strategic and impacts the overally ecosystem but that of (1) is more of a domestic affair. Wouldn't it be easy to push for (1) which is less controversial? I am open to someone educating me and others. > Stefan