Re: Development Speed

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> This is not about having the latest GCC, this is about having a GCC
> that's less than 10 years old.

Simple example: GCC 3.4.x does not support C17, and it's recommended for
building the MS-DOS port, which doesn't only run on MS-DOS, but also
builds and runs on its free and actively developed replacement FreeDOS,
and also MS-Windows.

> Aren't there modern machines without this? Machines that are much more
> performant, reliable and secure than those old ones, which usually are
> tied to an unsupported OS full of security defects?

There are no others that are easy to obtain.  We don't want to just make
it possible for people to use Emacs with free software, but we also want
to make it easy.

> I sincerely don't get the stance of clinging to decades-old software and
> hardware but when it comes to Emacs it must be the latest and shiniest.

Why is that?

> As if emacs version N would cease to work the very moment emacs version
> N+1 is released.

Indeed, aside from Tramp and a few other packages, code remaining
compatible with older versions of Emacs is a rarity nowadays.

> Have we checked lately if those machines that we purport to support are
> able to run anything more complex than `emacs -Q'?

Yes.  For example, I tried quite a few things with the MS-DOS port, and
thanks to that, it works on Emacs 28 now.

The same situation exists with Windows 9x.  At work, we have a 9x system
for running legacy applications, and having Emacs 27 installed on that
system is really convenient.  And yes, that Emacs installation is
regularly used.

> The amount of tension and obstructionism that emerges every time that
> someone suggests implementing some technology less than 20 years old is
> overwhelming.

We already use the features of C11 and C17 where they are available.
That doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to break the build on
C99, which is regularly tested.