From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joaotavora@gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_T=E1vora?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: use-package.el -> Emacs core Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:46:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <564136F7.2020404@yandex.ru> <877flqe1a4.fsf@gmail.com> <87twoucaxz.fsf@gmail.com> <877flqc9jh.fsf@gmail.com> <87twout0iu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447170435 13584 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2015 15:47:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Dmitry Gutov , Oleh Krehel , Emacs developers To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 10 16:47:07 2015 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 1ZwB8T-0007vZ-L4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:47:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33237 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwB8N-00030G-V3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:46:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33079) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwB8I-0002w0-5X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:46:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwB8D-00075m-0P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:46:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]:38555) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwB8C-000757-LZ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:46:48 -0500 Original-Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so7460841wme.1; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:46:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WCxmMNJqRWhUb6YMvFH8fdd+t4NNHPyx8X7/oa2DwKY=; b=ZFGoZiklPhsjNIDQ/NwAkENTj/nwhtuP/YY8D2PMvh3gTRxHfRpld4BjyVyiV4txYP YdyWtFnQV8/aBQ8/Pfr9RPGi0d/Gp/tJ65F7x88spLYJ0BdTHlkWnAQvcoRiI2Ahy16q Cxz0KvA1F1Fa7ymwtYoEhnT0H6nTM4YB5da2M7gArxx1ZQe5SzbFNe6H/Qbhaa/3KG9t ccEytsZqROv67+61GVEak9b7V/GqVYduBwSNyHfrcfa3ZW6z156HZ+naWzO4ps+fN3+u j04SS6fhWkOyXT5s9xZusA1j+xYPAD/TYKAY77Ki0jLAD9YgV8lGLKRp07lv0NkzRqC+ sMdg== X-Received: by 10.28.144.138 with SMTP id s132mr5305036wmd.97.1447170407929; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:46:47 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from GONDOMAR.yourcompany.com (mail3.siscog.pt. [195.23.29.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ly4sm4175253wjb.4.2015.11.10.07.46.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:46:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:17:36 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5, (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (windows-nt) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::232 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:193868 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> Jo=E3o T=E1vora writes: > >> I don't think anyone is arguing against the usefulness of macros in gene= ral, >> only skeptic macros that introduce a totally new mini-language for a lot >> independent functionality, most of it already user-visible and documente= d in >> the user manual. Such is the case of `use-package' > > use-package is not aimed at replacing the Lisp skills of the members of t= his > list; it is also for those whose only exposure to add-hook is an opaque t= hing > they copied from a web page. They will never read up on what it does, and > forcing them to see it does not encourage them to become programmers. > > (use-package python-mode :load-path "site-lisp/python-mode" :mode "\\.p= y$") > > This is also something they'll just copy and paste, maybe not even knowing > what a mode is. Compare with: > > (add-to-list 'load-path (expand-file-name "site-lisp/python-mode" > user-emacs-directory)) > (autoload 'python-mode "python-mode" nil t) > (add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.py$" . python-mode)) But, if using package.el (or el-get), I don't need to write this, right? It= 's already setup by python.el and by whatever method I used to install it. For this simple example, doesn't `package-install' do exactly the same thing? Why should we have a new way to solve the same problem?=20 Can we have an example of real-world third-party emacs packages (perhaps one in (m)ELPA and another one not on any package repository) and a fair comparison of the different alternatives there are for setting it up? I haven't seen any convincing examples, but I'm sure you can come up with some. I can help include other third-party alternatives like `el-get' for instance in that comparison. I think this is what we need before coming to a more objective conclusion regarding usefulness. Regarding functionality, correctness and the needs for documenting such a high-profile feature in the user manual, that's a whole different matter. > "Only a mother could love that". To an Emacs Lisp expert, the latter does= have > some beauty, owing to its directness, and clarity with regard to fundamen= tal > operations. Somehow, though, I prefer the former. Then by all means use it :). But should I have to learn it too? Do you see my point about the impact that endorsing (another) package installation/configuration method has for package maintainers? Note that up until now I'm not talking, as others are, about "confusing" new users. That is quite hard to measure or estimate. I can only conjecture that some people are more attracted to the "single form" aspect of it than to its particular mini-language. I know I am. And someone mentioned bind-key's advantages and the logging also looks like a nice feature. In this sense, the particular merits of each particular feature could be used to contribute to improving existing functionality, or to add new functionality that helps everybody, not just fans of use-package. Wouldn't that satisfy you? Wouldn't that be easier than introducing and documenting a whole new way of configuring packages, something that is a super-central pillar of Emacs? Jo=E3o