Re: "Write a new package" culture instead of patches?

[Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 19:25:50 +0000
>> From: ndame <ndame@protonmail.com>
>> 
>> The obvious answer  is because they solved the problem, it works, available to anyone and they can't be
>> bothered with jumping through additional hoops (paperwork, following the core rules for docs, code
>> formatting, commit message, etc.).
>> 
>> For some people getting their code into the core is a source of pride. For others it's a pointless excercise,
>> because it's trivially available from MELPA which the majority of users use anyway for other packages too.
>
> But MELPA asks you to jump through a different set of hoops, which
> seems to fly in the face of your theory.
>
> IME, many people who "solved the problem" want others to enjoy their
> solution, and that is what gives them the incentive to "jump through
> hoops".
To me I just want to save some cpu cycles :-). Somebody could take and
re-write my ls-switch thingy better, and I would be happy as long as I
don't need to download 3rd party package and overwrite already loaded
software everytime I start Emacs (as long as it does what I need). So
patch in Emacs is to prefer to 3rd party package in my eyes. At least
for very common, often used stuff.

Kind-of green-thinking, saving unnecessary wasted cpu cycles saves
energy as well for me as for the nature. Maybe ridicolous thinking, but
why we load so much stuff into Emacs, just to overwrite it on boot time?
:-)

I think efficiency in computing should be in general taken more
seriously, I think it is morally as important as
privacy/freedom/integrity considerations which FSF/GNU people are
standing for.