From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric M. Ludlam" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Dynamic loading (was: Release plans) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:30 -0400 Message-ID: <200808240157.m7O1vUIH000565@projectile.siege-engine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219543069 10760 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2008 01:57:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:57:49 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 24 03:58:43 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KX4sK-0005rn-UQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:58:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51580 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX4rN-0005ES-B4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX4rK-0005EN-9k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX4rI-0005EB-Pu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33239 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX4rI-0005E8-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: from static-71-184-83-10.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([71.184.83.10]:59817 helo=projectile.siege-engine.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KX4rI-0000y0-Ac for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:36 -0400 Original-Received: from projectile.siege-engine.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by projectile.siege-engine.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m7O1vUWB000567 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:30 -0400 Original-Received: (from zappo@localhost) by projectile.siege-engine.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id m7O1vUIH000565; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:57:30 -0400 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102905 Archived-At: Hi, Note: I'm not on the mailing list, but have been reading some threads via the archive, so I don't have thread info in my mail headers. Sorry. > > > Are you beginning to see how untenable your position is? > > > > No. It may well be that, after more rigorous analysis, loadable binaries > > in Emacs might not be a problem. But being wrong is a long way from > > being untenable. > >Sigh. All the analysis so far has been provided by me and Tom, >principally, with similar comments from others on the pro-DSO side. >You just repeat your assertions, and Stallman compliments your for >your clear statement of the issues. Humbug! While I personally think that dynamically loadable libraries would be very helpful to me, I'd like to provide an example which would support what I think Alan is worried about. I've been working on CEDET for a long time. It supports smart completion for various langauges plus a bunch of other stuff. It's something I've been working on since 1995 or so. The not-free XRefactory tool uses Emacs as the editor for its UI. It uses Emacs Lisp, and subprocesses to do it's work. I've seen at least two explicit instances of folks who try CEDET, have some percieved issue, and end up using XRefactory instead because it works for them. By this, I mean they sent email saying this was their intent. Based on the number of folks who just stopped using CEDET because it wasn't "ready yet", I'd guess there are more. When it comes down to it, XRefactory has a lot of great stuff I just haven't gotten to yet in CEDET. Would more folks use CEDET, and help identify or fix bugs in CEDET if there was no XRefactory? I would guess so. I don't use it, so it doesn't affect me or my computer, but it's existence makes it less important for others to help w/ CEDET, and make it better because their problems are already solved. Now, all that said, would supporting dynamic libraries in Emacs earlier have changed any of that? The difference would be that XRefactory would be using dll's for some of it's stuff, but I doubt much else would change. I would posit that the issue already exists, and dlls are just another flavor. Anything you do w/ a DLL, you can do by writing main.c with a text IO interface, compiling it, and writing some lisp to do process IO. It just takes longer when I'm the one doing it. Eric