From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: IDE Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:00:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87si59ln6u.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> References: <83bncf3f9k.fsf@gnu.org> <5610E0BC.8090902@online.de> <83si5r106e.fsf@gnu.org> <831td9z18h.fsf@gnu.org> <5612E996.7090700@yandex.ru> <83bnc7tavr.fsf@gnu.org> <5618C92A.3040207@yandex.ru> <83a8rrt9ag.fsf@gnu.org> <871tcyexa9.fsf@fimbulvetr.bsc.es> <87612a7my2.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <561DC925.5050001@siege-engine.com> <561E32D2.4060501@yandex.ru> <83wpum3ozk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445083273 5793 80.91.229.3 (17 Oct 2015 12:01:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 17 14:01:03 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 1ZnQAY-000220-Qd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:01:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58096 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnQAY-0001zX-4w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnQAE-0001zE-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:00:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnQA9-0000n7-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:00:42 -0400 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([5.45.97.173]:36578) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnQA8-0000lI-UU; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 08:00:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=cZGyD/3CmUgC+YroRG2l1uCtRzLLXVfDWVmUQFlLrhc=; b=MuvATwmTFYEeSDbreVtlqSCk65CMiYhmuOluVIPjgQT8yJjQXcy+l+2hZO/lWxcfBqeMNxG/+BrTwVL5Zq0QBkQ1VxMNNsfatw5OPEZkDBhSesxtYXrsxbWqwGlGYwW2; Original-Received: from ip4d1645ea.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([77.22.69.234] helo=isaac.fritz.box) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnQA2-0000q7-8y; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:00:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83wpum3ozk.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:58:55 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 5.45.97.173 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:191818 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: "John Wiegley" >> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:58:57 -0700 >> > >> >>>>> Dmitry Gutov writes: >> >> > My already-stated impression is that it's over-specialized and tightly >> > coupled. >> > >> > Not saying that the problem domain is easy, but being able to use different >> > pieces of the solution separately would go a long way towards alleviating >> > the complaint that certain other parts are incomplete. >> > >> > Especially if it were easier to swap in different solutions for some of >> > those parts (and do entirely without some others), and do that in not too >> > many lines, all as part of the user's configuration. >> >> You've taken the reply right out of my mouth, Dmitry. David's response was >> also very much in line with my thinking. As I said before, if CEDET were the >> answer to our questions, we wouldn't still be asking them. > > Could it be that we don't understand the answer? > > I'd suggest to be very careful with such conclusions. They can only > be valid when based on a detailed analysis of what is and isn't in > CEDET, and on good knowledge and understanding of its design and > implementation. My impression so far is that neither is particularly > true, and my evidence is the number of times Eric and David Engster > described some CEDET features that came as a surprise to us. > > I'm quite sure CEDET has collected and expressed in code a lot of > experience and solutions to many problems that arise in the context of > building an IDE. It's OK to discard that, if we sure that's the > proverbial 1st variant everyone throws away, but we need first to be > sure we know what we are discarding. Actually, Eric rewrote Semantic once already... >From the discussion so far, I think the main issue at least w.r.t. to Semantic is: do you actually want Semantic's tag-based system, or more general: do you want quick access to AST information in your buffer? If I understand Dmitry correctly, he is not really interested in that, as for dynamic languages, the AST information is usually missing important information (unless you bother to implement a complete frontend). He'd rather call external binaries for complicated stuff like completion, and use simpler tools (like pure regexp-based parsing) for stuff like font-locking, navigation, folding, etc. Of course, you can hook external binaries into Semantic pretty easily, but I can understand Dmitry that if he does not need the rest of Semantic, why should he bother? Now, I think having AST information in your buffer is great, and I don't like depending on external binaries if I don't have to, because I want as much as possible in Emacs Lisp. For me, that's what Emacs is about and why I still use it in the first place. -David