From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:43:56 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444200253 19533 80.91.229.3 (7 Oct 2015 06:44:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 06:44:13 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 07 08:44:12 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 1ZjiSS-00017q-1e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:44:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55557 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjiSR-0007fW-9D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:44:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56982) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjiSN-0007fF-MV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:44:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjiSI-0001yl-K8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]:35703) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjiSI-0001yU-FW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 02:44:02 -0400 Original-Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so12183236pac.2 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:44:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=T6KxZGSV9ooZ/jnFrSxlTs7j46NdynZMnyyJCloOxag=; b=dIVP6pByIWPntR5Ez1/JQU/ybf4oSaQWRW+9FiJpQ1fwwhFcP8tRGGwgesrvBzHLFf 6nvcgnvsxH8XytYFx6fdflESlvGQ38hu3xGkqioNMHukV2WURDOs0HmEaog/3FQy8WWc l6mghcYI7ZgUvrfGF+zLYYWbFM97xRL8UKWczbQusTno96Utl2BNQsSte41FQ1wIYZXE IY+YdMLkLDxM1JLIPzuZhzcNjRW96ce1OfrMRbfzn0ejNd9MzRZ6b0HvaTqs8OqrfTe4 G21rqPLyJJ/yEOcUlnBrtC7M5zP4QWTovqkEs0TBNGi2wzmvhjN02yyAqvpl0CLZleUL 3l1w== X-Received: by 10.68.137.35 with SMTP id qf3mr51682314pbb.89.1444200241700; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id kh7sm37242493pbc.93.2015.10.06.23.43.59 for (version=TLS1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id B9CC2F1AFEE3; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:43:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue, 06 Oct 2015 20:18:30 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235 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:191034 Archived-At: >>>>> Richard Stallman writes: > That's true, but it is too weak; we are failing to communicate. The issue is > not about what is "precluded" but rather about what actually works. The > point is, when the feature is introduced in Emacs, it should really work > with GCC as well as it does with any competitor to GCC. Hi Richard, Thank you for the clarification, the picture is becoming much clearer. I really appreciate the time you've taken to reiterate these positions for the millionth time. There is one point I am having a hard time with. I'm feeling as though my Emacs experience (as a user) is being sacrificed at someone else's altar. The idea, if I understand it, is that you don't want Emacs' C++ support to allow Clang to beat GCC, because then people would naturally choose Clang who care more about getting things done, than they do about software freedom. In effect, Emacs is being used to keep people within the free software agenda, by making Clang no more appealing than GCC. This troubles me. I can see that for you, the freedom idea is much more important than the technical idea. You'd rather we stick with GCC until the cows come home, so long as it leads to a freer world. Meanwhile, there are those among us who don't share your ideals to the same extent. We'd prefer an editor that lets us get things done faster, better, leaving us with free time to... produce more free software. I can't help but think that unless the FSF has more to offer than its ideals, its technical decisions are going to render it obsolete. Progress waits for no man, and the world is changing more and more rapidly. There is a reason Clang is eating GCC's lunch: because the needs of a larger community demand a better free compiler. Emacs is still a fantastic editor, but it's old and its age is showing. If we remain competitive, it could stay awesome for another 30 years; but if we avoid progress to further non-technical agendas, I think it will drive people AWAY from the GNU project, not bind them more tightly to it. John