On 14 October 2017 at 09:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Reuben Thomas > > Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:10:44 +0100 > > Cc: João Távora , > > Sami Kerola , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Alan > Mackenzie , > > Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky < > npostavs@users.sourceforge.net>, sdl.web@gmail.com, > > Stefan Monnier > > > > These days, it seems much better to use Flycheck than Flymake (that's > certainly what I do). See > > https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck > > > > It would be a pity for Flymake to become yet another part of Emacs that > developers spend time updating and > > users largely ignore; better to spin it off into ELPA, and if people > still want to work on it there, fine. Meanwhile, > > why not use Flycheck by default (in the same way as we've "in-sourced" > Org and other packages)? > > I don't understand: Flycheck is an external package; why should we > prefer it to Flymake, assuming that the latter will become supported > well by the built-in major modes? > ​See ​ http://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/user/flycheck-versus-flymake.html#flycheck-versus-flymake ​ And I suggested precisely bundling Flycheck with Emacs.​ IOW, what I see here is a serious effort to make Flymake a > sophisticated and flexible syntax-checking tool bundled with Emacs. I > don't see why should we object to such an effort, when one of our > major goals is to provide a modern program development environment. > ​Because with Flycheck this is already accomplished. Why not work instead on things that Emacs lacks?​ There are already far too many duplicated packages, leading to duplicated maintenance effort. -- https://rrt.sc3d.org