From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows 9X compatibility Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:59:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87mxxs3311.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <831vf7ge57.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6hfeyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83vdcig87f.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <4BAEA525.20709@gmail.com> <83iq8ggbcp.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269788717 7252 80.91.229.12 (28 Mar 2010 15:05:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:05:17 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 28 17:05:13 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nvu37-0006FK-45 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:05:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57353 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nvu36-0000Lr-SA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:05:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NvtyK-00074y-Dq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:00:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49472 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NvtyI-000743-U5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvtyH-0004GK-4n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:00:14 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:50165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvtyG-0004Fx-Qq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:00:13 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvtyE-0003tv-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:00:10 +0200 Original-Received: from 83.32.114.13 ([83.32.114.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:00:10 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 83.32.114.13 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:00:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.32.114.13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.93 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NihF8luuR0cedvVS2/Hq9P1XvY4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:122793 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:39:01 -0600 >> From: Christoph >> >> The need is in my opinion a growing pain in the rear-end to support this >> backwards compatibility. > > This argument can only be persuasive if it comes from someone who > personally experienced this pain, which could only be true if they are > active maintainers of the MS-Windows port. Maybe the fact that there are no more active maintainers of the MS-Windows port is somewhat related to the pain in the rear that W9X compatbility is? Just an hypothesis. Speaking for myself, the W9X compatibility requirement means that I prefer to restrict my very occasional Emacs hacking to Elisp code, even if I have experience with the Windows API. First, I don't have a machine for testing. Second, the W9X API is so broken and has some many quirks that, apart from the permanent browsing of the MSDN it requires, a trivial change can be easily turned into a long session of mailing list archive archeology. Third, W9X compatibility means that you either have to refrain to implement features based on modern APIs or #ifdef them, which greatly adds to the maintenance burden. Furthermore, the claim about lots of *running* machines on underdeveloped areas still having W9X is dubious now. AFAIK, people transitioned to Windows XP when powerful enough obsoleted machines arrived, which started to happen about 6 years ago. For the time Emacs 24 is out, the percentage of W9X machines out there will be almost zero, for the simple reason that computers doesn't last forever (no pun intended) Finally, if someone has a weak machine, there are some fine GNU/Linux distros tailored for his needs. I doubt that someone who insists on using W9X instead of a modern GNU/Linux distro is interested on being up to date with Emacs releases, or even on using Emacs at all.