Re: Beyond release

[phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)]

Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2016-06-27 11:33, Andreas Röhler wrote:
>>> I think that's an incorrect characterisation (see statements that
>>> Makarius made on the Proof General mailing list).
>> 
>> That's where my conclusions are from. Any precise spot to tell
>> otherwise?
>
> Yes: Makarius wrote: "While it is technically feasible to connect Proof
> General to Isabelle/Scala/PIDE in some imitation of the old TTY mode, I
> personally don't believe that there are serious adherents to Emacs still
> around to do that."


I'm guessing that Isabelle/Emacs integration used "parsing output"
interaction. FWIW, I think that the days of this form of archictecture
are numbered. Both scala and clojure interaction now use something with
a structured protocol, with a specialized server on the scala or clojure
side. A similar thing is happening with R, also, and maybe with JDEE.

I don't know if anything could be done, but adding general support for
repl interaction to core or ELPA would probably be a good thing. I don't
know if it is possible -- most of the tools that I have mentioned so far
use different protocols, so perhaps it is not.


>> That's interesting. Maybe that would also worth being reflected. So
>> extending in Java should be easier than in Emacs Lisp? How could it
>> came to this?
>
> Does Makarius know Emacs Lisp?

Which is the problem. You don't need to ask if he knows Java, because
everyone knows Java.

Phil