From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Meanness Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:31 +0200 Message-ID: <85abg41rz8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20080726081019.GB1419@muc.de> <853alw3aq8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <488B6391.2040500@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217092988 10812 80.91.229.12 (26 Jul 2008 17:23:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thomas Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 26 19:23:57 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 1KMnUq-0003Yn-AZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:23:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34193 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMnTw-0000o8-EC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:23:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KMnSg-0000L2-Oh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:21:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KMnSf-0000J4-6L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:21:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36120 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMnSe-0000Iw-LW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:21:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-13.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.53]:40704) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KMnSY-0008Qx-I8; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:21:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.19]) by mail-in-13.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7DE1E4F7A; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (mail-in-06.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.46]) by mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F4E2C6BE2; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-019-167.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.19.167]) by mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CAE35E71F; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id D1BA91C4CCF2; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <488B6391.2040500@emf.net> (Thomas Lord's message of "Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:49:05 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/7836/Sat Jul 26 17:59:51 2008 on mail-in-06.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean 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:101547 Archived-At: Thomas Lord writes: > As a component, one requirement is that it have excellent "fit" > (aka "coupling") with other parts of a GNU system. Making > Emacs work really well on today's GNU/Linux systems is > probably the best way to force improvements to its coupling. > > However: > > As a *component*, especially one of such central, low-level > importance, Emacs should also have excellent "orthogonality and > self-containment" (aka "cohesion"). It should fit well with a larger > GNU system but it should, internally, be flexible, self-contained, > based on good abstractions, etc. It should fit GNU but it shouldn't > be overly "intertwingled" with GNU. Why? > The best way to force improvements to cohesion is by "porting" and > using the component in comparable but substantially different > environments. Windows is such. No. Windows is not comparable. Various Unix variants are. There is nothing to be gained for Emacs on GNU/Linux by having to support file systems which use backslashes instead of slashes and have drive letters. Such things require creating artificial splicings of code and pseudo-abstractions and APIs which make code less straightforward to read and write. That is a cost, not a benefit. > Two simple examples: fonts and colors. If the abstractions at the > Emacs lisp level for fonts and colors are agnostic with respect to GNU > vs. Windows and are effective on both, *that improves the quality of > the Emacs component on GNU systems* by shaking out any needless > intertwingling with X11 abstractions. Uh no, it doesn't. Gdk (and Gtk) provide efficient color map and image handling. Emacs doesn't. It is quite worse, and that's exactly because of being reduced to lowest denominator handling and corresponding interfaces. Gtk/Pango provides right-to-left typesetting and internationalization. Emacs doesn't. The list goes on and on. I am well aware that there are cost/benefit weighings involved. That's fine. But declaring the costs to be benefits is not a basis for planning. > Doing it well, though, should improve emacs *on GNU* in ways that > almost no other plausible activity can do. My experience with Windows-too projects runs quite contrary. The costs are in _no_ relation whatsoever to the benefits for the non-Windows parts (actually, their tend to be only costs for them, without benefits). And I don't see Emacs as an exception. The benefit for a Windows port lies in having a Windows port. If there were tangible other benefits, we could invent imaginary operating systems en gros and spend our time porting to them. Can we please _stop_ this silliness? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum