From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.tangents Subject: Re: emacs-devel/debbugs communication (was: New Package for NonGNU-ELPA: clojure-ts-mode) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 03:09:41 +0200 Message-ID: <8734ztpgru.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87il9kksqz.fsf@dfreeman.email> <83zg2vav46.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7j99304.fsf@dfreeman.email> <97224c4f-fad4-ae01-46c1-5755d97d9a92@gutov.dev> <87fs3ztq38.fsf@localhost> <87cyz3qwba.fsf@posteo.net> <8734zztmiz.fsf@localhost> <87sf7zqs3l.fsf@yahoo.com> <87il8vs6e7.fsf@localhost> <87jztbqrc9.fsf@yahoo.com> <877cpbs5a0.fsf@localhost> <87fs3zqqgj.fsf@yahoo.com> <874jkfs4o0.fsf@localhost> <87y1hroz47.fsf@posteo.net> <87wmx7mzcf.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-tangents@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:2Rxx8/psI7IUElayreLYhBitfjA= Original-X-From: emacs-tangents-bounces+get-emacs-tangents=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 05 04:22:10 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qdLhi-0009jr-Ms for get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2023 04:22:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qdLhT-0003Dp-NA; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 22:21:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qdKZo-0000Bs-5r for emacs-tangents@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 21:09:56 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qdKZl-0002LS-6h for emacs-tangents@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 21:09:55 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qdKZh-0006X7-NF for emacs-tangents@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Sep 2023 03:09:49 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-tangents@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 22:21:51 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-tangents@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-tangents-bounces+get-emacs-tangents=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-tangents-bounces+get-emacs-tangents=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.tangents:1046 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: >> 1. Maintainers often say "no" to certain things (like code >> refactoring that does not lead to any clear improvement) >> because they know from their extensive experience that >> some ideas are "non-starters". However, they do not >> elaborate much why one or another thing is >> not acceptable. >> >> Not elaborating is actually perfectly understandable - >> it would be annoying to repeat the same thing many times >> and would also waste the maintainer's valuable time that >> could be spent for something more productive. > > I think I can understand why this feels painful -- but what > concretely could we ask the maintainers to do which would be > better overall? gnu.emacs.devel FAQ! I. BAD IDEAS AND WHY THEY ARE BAD 1. Idea: Drop Elisp, instead use SBCL for Emacs Argument: SBCL is faster and has parallelism for modern multicores. We would be able to use everything the SBCL community has developed. For the supposed Lisp editor, we would have the most relentless and cruel Lisp on Earth, instead of the half-goofy Elisp which some people think is just used to set a bunch of options. Why it is STILL a bad idea: Elisp is now also very fast with native-compilation and it is likely it will get even faster as that technology is quite new, and is being actively developed. Elisp is also much more portable than SBCL. The SBCL speed advantage and parallelism relies on specific constructs the programmer has to add explicitly in the code. So all our Joe Hacker's Elisp wouldn't benefit from that in its current state. Not to mention all our Joe Hacker's Elisp would have to be re-written and adopted into SBCL. To re-write Emacs so that its Lisp would be SBCL and not Elisp would be an insanely big undertaking with a very unclear image what the result would be. Remember, one shouldn't burn down the house to kill the rats. Also, there are Emacs-like editors already that are based on CL. So we are not doing it, goddammit! -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal