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 Lisp's future Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:56:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87y4thq8o9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87sijqxzr2.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <878uliwajb.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87lhpitg6t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wq92uhwh.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87wq91si9s.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87oauduue2.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87a95xs0j8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnqdupyc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <8761glrv2f.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <877g11uie6.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411052230 18782 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2014 14:57:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 18 16:57:04 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 1XUd8l-00086K-6Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:56:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51623 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUd8k-0003qm-Sj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:56:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39347) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUd8g-0003qb-NA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:56:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUd8b-0000ca-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49849) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUd8b-0000br-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:56:49 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57023 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUd8Q-00034p-P8; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:56:43 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 506E5DF8D0; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:56:22 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <877g11uie6.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> (Taylan Ulrich Bayirli's message of "Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:12:49 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (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:174503 Archived-At: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> At any rate, it has been mentioned previously in this discussion that >> the Emacs developer list is not always considered a happy-go-lucky >> environment. So if it is the habit of GUILE developers to take out >> revenge on a project and its users for enmity with single developers, >> that's also relevant for making crucial GNU software depend on GUILE. > > I don't see the Guile developers taking revenge on anyone --especially > not LilyPond as a whole-- but rather flaying off your efforts to take > revenge on them by passing on your anger. It was you who stated that you considered it likely that LilyPond was not given any support of GUILE developers because of me being a persona non grata. At some point of time you have to decide whether you mean what you say or not. > No need to be happy-go-lucky, just less insulting. > > You could probably continue taking part on guile-devel if you were more > cooperative. Since I am unconditionally not permitted to post there, that is hypothetical. >> I think this interpretation of events is not making for a much better >> outlook. Particularly because Emacs development is more often than >> other GNU projects governed by unpopular political decisions. A >> habit of retaliation and "see-where-this-will-get-you" in order to >> pressure for a change in project lead is not likely going to work out >> well. > > It's ironic that you would talk about retaliation and > "see-where-this-will-get-you" behavior, or am I misunderstanding? :-) > > It feels more like that's your attitude, despite there being no > pressure from the Guile side. As there will be "no pressure" from the GUILE side once they decide Emacs becomes too inconvient to support. >> I don't think that you are better off selling this situation as a >> personal vendetta, and it is not like the GUILE 2 problem was not >> already there when I started to get involved with LilyPond. > > Let's be honest here, it was obvious from your first mail on this > thread that there's something personal going on. I knew absolutely > nothing about your history on guile-devel (did not even recognize your > name), yet guessed immediately that there was something fishy. Not particularly hard to guess since I pointed _out_ that there was something fishy. >> "This is not possible" will be defined under the constraints of GUILE >> remaining Scheme according to GUILE's vision of interpretating the >> Scheme standard and its further evolution. > > Reminder that Guile-Emacs, in its current alpha state, already runs > ERC, Gnus, rcirc, Dired, term, comint, TRAMP, c-mode, etc. There will > definitely not be much that is impossible. Emacs is the platform for an ecosystem supporting thousands of packages. That requires a rather high level of compatibility. While you have ventured to say that you consider the move to Guile-Emacs as less disruptive as that to lexical binding, you have glossed over the fact that lexical binding has to be _explicitly_ enabled on a file-by-file basis, meaning that old code will run unchanged and with dynamic bindings. One cannot help the impression that there is a certain elasticity to the claims of what will be possible under which conditions that make them less than useful for long-range planning. Brad's status report in contrast was rather to the point, and the web page at paints a more realistic picture of the current situation as well. At the current point of time, it definitely appears that the marketing department should not fear being overtaken by the engineering department, even though the latter is making solid progress. -- David Kastrup