Re: What's missing in ELisp that makes people want to use cl-lib?

["Gerd Möllmann" <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > Then I guess I don't understand what you mean by "polymorphism".
>> 
>> C'mon :-)
>> 
>> This sub-thread started, when I told why I'm not using seq and will not.
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2023-11/msg00122.html
>> I said this (this is all I wrote):
>> 
>>   The reason I will not use seq.el or map.el in the forseeable future is
>>   quite simple: I haven't ever needed an abstraction over sequence types
>>   using generic functions, and I never have CPU cycles to give away for
>>   free.
>
> This doesn't explain why you say that polymorphism isn't used, it just
> states your reasons for not using seq.el.  So I'm still in the dark
> here, sorry.

Been there already when it was lighter::
  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2023-11/msg00123.html

You said:
  What prevents us from implementing in seq.el methods for specific
  types of sequences?  AFAIU, the only reason we didn't is because no
  one has yet came up with important situations where the generics in
  seq.el are not performant enough.

>> Neither you nor Richard ever addressed the question why this
>> polymorphism is needed or even a Good Thing.
>
> Maybe it isn't strictly necessary, but I don't see why it should be
> rejected, once it is there.  Several contributors to Emacs whose
> opinions I respect liked the way seq.el is implemented, and wanted to
> use it, which is one reason why it is preloaded.

I never talked about rejecting anything. I said at least twice something
to the effect of "to each his own".

>
>> I doubt that your, and Richard's, intention is to really communicate
>> over these issues. It has already been decided by Richard and you,
>> right? The rest is rabulistic. Slow is fast enough, time will show,
>> maintainers think this or that, it's preloaded, it's not concrete, what
>> is polymorphism, and so on, and so on. Conspiracy theory is still missing.
>
> "Rabulistic"? really? With anyone else I'd take offense. With you, I'm
> just infinitely puzzled, not to say astonished. Whatever did I do or
> say to deserve such denigration?

No personal offence intended. If I caused that, I apologize.

> I do have an opinion on this
> issue, but since when is it deemed improper to have an opinion, and
> why sticking to that opinion as long as no argument is brought up that
> makes me change my mind is considered a vice?  I provided technical
> arguments which explain my position; you can disagree, of course, but
> please don't treat them as something unworthy, let alone dishonest.

As far as I am noncerned, everyone is entitled to his opinion. I can't
stress enough: live and let live. Would saying you're like a piece of
soap under the shower for me be better?