From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:44:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87lhb1n81y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k2qrki45.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8737xf9je9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pp0fm0j3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3kusx8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83lhb26eb9.fsf@gnu.org> <876126key3.fsf@gnu.org> <83fv1a6bfu.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1weo7u9.fsf@gnu.org> <83zizi3qr0.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445075093 18317 80.91.229.3 (17 Oct 2015 09:44:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 17 11:44:48 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2h-0002Kj-Ax for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:44:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57651 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2g-0005Sb-I7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:44:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35057) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2T-0005SV-Bn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:44:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2P-00047L-58 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:44:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51291) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2P-00047G-22 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:44:29 -0400 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:40436 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnO2O-0002l9-7F; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:44:28 -0400 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 26 =?utf-8?Q?Vend=C3=A9miaire?= an 224 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <83zizi3qr0.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:20:51 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191814 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:51:26 +0200 >>=20 >> Eli Zaretskii skribis: >>=20 >> > In any case, Emacs can never be satisfied with the current Guile >> > infrastructure for i18n. There are too many shortcomings, some of >> > them were mentioned here. Yes, Guile can be fixed to be better in >> > that area, but no one is working on that, AFAIK, and what's more >> > important, lead Guile developers don't even agree Guile should move in >> > that direction. (This especially puzzles me: to have a good example >> > before you and not follow it? Emacs learned what it has now the hard >> > way, have paid in blood, sweat and tears for that knowledge, and still >> > Guile developers think they "know better"? Present parties excluded, >> > of course.) >>=20 >> My point is: Emacs can keep doing its own thing in that area. > > Of course. But that takes away a serious chunk of arguments in favor > of Guile-based Emacs, for 2 reasons: (a) there will have to be a > non-trivial translation layer between the two, and (b) a very large > part of Emacs's C core will have to be left intact, instead of > removing it because Guile already does that. AFAIK nobody claims that Guile is the right choice due to its i18n support. The main claims are: the compiler, VM (which would no longer be part of Emacs), FFI, libraries, etc. That chunk isn=E2=80=99t taken away. >> (And I would guess that neither C++, nor Lua, nor anything else would >> provide an i18n infrastructure that would satisfy Emacs out-of-the-box.) > > Of course. But the Guile alternative is being brought up as being > much better than those others. If we leave the strings and i18n > alone, a large part of that argument goes away. Guile strings are fine, thank you. I=E2=80=99ve used a bunch of language/environments and honestly, I=E2=80=99m definitely not ashamed of w= hat Guile provides, contrary to what David and you seem to imply. I fail to follow the reasoning anyway, but I don=E2=80=99t have much to add. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.