From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nick Keighley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <046cbc2d-1afb-4ad9-98d1-ebc43d70ee3a@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291945853 8505 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2010 01:50:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:50:53 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 10 02:50:47 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQs7U-0007zM-5d for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:50:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35983 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQs73-0008OE-39 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:49:33 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: comp.emacs, comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, gnu.emacs.help, comp.emacs.xemacs Original-Lines: 73 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.201.250.209 Original-X-Trace: posting.google.com 1277886448 26949 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2010 08:27:28 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.201.250.209; posting-account=sLi3rQoAAAB6wjiwo9v8I7Xw7Kf7_67C User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 ssproxy.uk.mobile.marconi.com:8080 (http_scan/4.0.2.6.19) X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe) Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu comp.emacs:100139 comp.lang.lisp:289813 comp.lang.c:977089 gnu.emacs.help:179358 comp.emacs.xemacs:82462 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:09:17 -0500 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:77156 Archived-At: On 30 June, 03:08, Fren Zeee wrote: > On Jun 29, 7:08=A0am, Xah Lee wrote: I'm not entirely sure this belongs on comp.lang.c. There's one point thats close to on-topic though. > > =95 GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > =A0http://xahlee.org/emacs/gnu_emacs_xemacs_schism_Ben_Wing.html > > > plain text version follows. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > GNU Emacs and Xemacs Schism, by Ben Wing > > > Ben Wing, 2001? > > > Many people look at the split between GNU Emacs and XEmacs and are > > convinced that the XEmacs team is being needlessly divisive and just > > needs to cooperate a bit with RMS, and the two versions of Emacs will > > merge. In fact there have been six to seven major attempts at merging, > > each running hundreds of messages long and all of them coming from the > > XEmacs side. All have failed because they have eventually come to the > > same conclusion, which is that RMS has no real interest in cooperation > > at all. If you work with him, you have to do it his way =97 =93my way o= r > > the highway=94. Specifically: > > 2. RMS does not like abstract data structures. Abstract data > > structures are the foundation of XEmacs and most other modern > > programming projects. In my opinion, [it] is difficult to impossible to > > write maintainable and expandable code without using abstract data > > structures. In merging talks with RMS he has said we can have any > > abstract data structures we want in a merged version but must allow > > direct access to the implementation as well, which defeats the primary > > purpose of having abstract data structures. > > What does he mean by ADT ? I thought any struct in C is the ADT. Some are more abstract than others. A true ADT hides implementaion detail (and allows it to be changed without change rippling through the whole application). For instance a stack could be an array or a linked list. An ADT would hide this detail a er Concrete DT (CDT) would allow access to the underlying array or list. Calling a struct an ADT is rather stretching the term. > If > the emacs is written in C then it has struct in it. I suspect most of it is written in Lisp. > If the lisp has a > certain structure of dotted pairs or two cells, then it is a > structure, ie a tree with special nodes to void. what? A Lisp cell is a pretty abstract type. Modern hardware is unlikely to support it directly and there a variety of ways to implement it in C. But when writing (most) Lisp you don't care. -- We recommend, rather, that users take advantage of the extensions of GNU C and disregard the limitations of other compilers. Aside from certain supercomputers and obsolete small machines, there is less and less reason ever to use any other C compiler other than for bootstrapping GNU CC. (Using and Porting GNU CC)