I feel this discussion went in the wrong direction. Let's just focus on how
much of the Emacs Mac port can we merge into GNU Emacs. It's clear at this
point we can't get all the functionality in, but I'd still take every
improvement that I can.

On 1 January 2016 at 17:01, Ingo Lohmar <i.lohmar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 31 2015 23:47 (-0800), Daniel Colascione wrote:
>
> > On 12/31/2015 11:36 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 1, 2016, at 15:54, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I probably shouldn't point this out, but Emacs on OS X already supports
> >>> invoking AppleScript. There's no GNU/Linux equivalent. Quelle horreur!
> >>
> >> That's an external mode for users to install.
> >
> > No it isn't. Grep for ns-do-applescript.
> >
>
> To my knowledge, calling external AppleScript does not make anything
> possible or easy that is not easy to do using other means (external
> scripts) on GNU/Linux.
>
> >>> Do you even care that your strategy hasn't been working?
> >>
> >> Emacs has been around longer than a huge amount of software and is
> bound to stay for a long time and outlive most of the editors that exist
> today. So it's hard to demonstrate that the "strategy" is not working. In
> fact, as was pointed earlier in this thread, a huge lot of Emacs users use
> it within OSX and *not* for it's ability to display emojis...
> >
> > Let's talk about how keeping features out of GCC led to the total defeat
> > of Clang.
>
> Firstly, you are switching the example from Emacs to GCC simply because
> it suits your argument.  What "works" in one instance might not work in
> another one, of course.
>
> More importantly, you imply that the "total defeat of Clang" is the goal
> of the GNU project and GCC in particular (presumably, something along
> those lines is what you mean when you say a strategy "works" or does not
> "work").  I do not speak for the project or for anybody else, but if you
> read up on just the few most fundamental essays on/of the free software
> movement, it should become very clear that this is completely besides
> the point (and would be more closely in line with the "open source"
> point of view).
>
>