I agree with Daniel here (both Daniels). There is no shortage of linux
kernel hackers and​ it is written in C. Plus I think that is a consensus
that C is not dying anytime soon.

Can't say the same for elisp.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:50 PM, David Requena Zabala <
DRequena@gamalquiler.com> wrote:

> Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > I sympathize with Daniel about the politics of this. This is not the
> sort of change that we'd ordinarily create a new branch for, and the way
> this is being handled will likely discourage further contributions.
>
> While I cannot really make an informed judgment merits of the portable
> dumper versus the sometime-to-come fast one-big-elc-file, and won't touch
> the branch vs master issue,  I can tell you this:
>
> The only argument against portable dumper adoption I've seen amounts to
> "it's coded in C", and the perceived (bad) consequences of the fact.
>
> Of course surely I'm not representative of the general programmer
> population. Stil, as a once would be emacs C contributor, I sense a
> definite avoid-anything-C-just-for-being-C atmosphere in the project.
>
> You might remember me from a few months ago, asking about non-toolkit
> scrollbars on win32 emacs.
> At that point:
>
> - I was willing to learn about learning enough about emacs core and win32
> to get those scrollbars.
> - I was willing to incorporate any requested changes to better integrate
> into emacs code base, coding style guidelines, whatever...
> - I was willing to go through the burden of the copyright attribution
> process.
> - I wasn't willing to argue ad nausea about the merits of yet another
> feature implemented in C.
>
> So these scrollbars never left my own private emacs build. In the process
> I never took the chance of leveraging my newly acquired knowledge and
> become a more regular emacs contributor.
>
> One might wonder to which degree the current C hacker scarcity in the
> project could actually be caused by the very attitude the Project
> management holds against C features.
>