From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:31:53 +0100 Message-ID: References: <53064BD0.7070009@yandex.ru> <87ha7tr5bo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ppmhecd8.fsf@yandex.ru> <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87vbvzcjv9.fsf@engster.org> <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393608752 23007 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 17:32:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 18:32:42 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 1WJRIe-0002Of-V6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:32:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52502 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJRIe-0001ox-Ig for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:32:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37565) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJRIa-0001oL-Nv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:32:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJRIa-0001BX-0I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:32:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yh0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e]:57349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJRIY-0001AP-KN; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:32:34 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f46.google.com with SMTP id v1so1032522yhn.33 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:32:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=AcjoZcLNnVxcj8dumznG5aiG2QPqFXprmv0ftLLZ9BA=; b=d9Sg5wRXajPTO/7rg5eF78fq0cjxOy0s8N+DQ8Foyfha5L3MDcRtVTdL8aLe/i7Lgv zh7D/jA6VFVSQHd7RDIH9MQq3zYR7THfOIC5EsbQ1rO4IpuUyU7A9PGb4sbGF/+43FCP S51IEv7qdmHGOay21JOJVrsx7rgjSuqT2WAAmdKANGRsDdC4LNQJovE8RyxwfRUI+ScZ SjVZfcWPgv+A84HOrYzW4840x6mhLw83FBHi3FIZacFcQ1TRvcEhhJf24WBjfrbdkAS6 puKjdnOHxnwWFcedXT1XHBTQEXRRofcXutkwPur2ZqiU+gYKUnqLGzxqlJ0jnrPLe7I6 fjrQ== X-Received: by 10.236.28.162 with SMTP id g22mr3325015yha.52.1393608753990; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:32:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.170.197.1 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:31:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e 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:169953 Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > In this case, the line is between using Emacs' leverage for preserving > GCC's importance over betting the horse on a product with an ultimate > fate out of the GNU project's control, and out of its original authors' > and current community's control. It would be interesting to measure (somehow ;-) whether that "Emacs leverage" is enough to preserve GCC's importance. I mean, if using the clang libraries allows much powerful, developer-friendly environments for C/C++ programmers, do we think that a significant number of them will still choose GCC because of Emacs? If the answer is "yes", Richard's position strenghtens GCC without prejudice for Emacs. If the answer is "not", that position hurts Emacs without helping GCC.