From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:18:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87vbacyxt9.fsf@gmail.com> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> 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 1444659554 27317 80.91.229.3 (12 Oct 2015 14:19:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 12 16:19:09 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 1ZldwQ-00041N-Tx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:19:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55775 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZldwQ-0006rs-6x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:19:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zldw8-0006dm-1J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:18:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zldw4-0000og-2H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:18:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:36094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zldw3-0000oc-S1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:18:43 -0400 Original-Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so151050396wic.1 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JlNaaoxG6pfjg2A/kdj5WvOEcaCgK/9ZV6146td2/o4=; b=cy5vyF+G4RKK4wgPOA6F/CtBpCgzZaKH61Pr85Cd1D1g6/8j1G0g+iqtN3QF6hZFj5 OMs1uda9/tyQo6aVivOLsCDF4RD0SOpxnaffIMO4nU13akKRkBD5pYQ2O/WjSmvA5JvJ 39LBgB3zxiUucfiEuavNxRa1Rr6jzq6JeBUospTZF8L21LYxpE6uXac68M5osIYiM6gK GWRVyUjIo6Azs2jE31CEZAYgAwwPYETXRr9/ALwhXb2TaW1F8TWo2huyKvlvG4prs80p 4J3f2ncJ/rAUqd6LbFlxdjhEAneJ+n0DC8AU/9cP4ZxZxqzhSq/ixe6GNu/BEOsYJEdS JXgw== X-Received: by 10.180.205.201 with SMTP id li9mr8997844wic.39.1444659522276; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm2894206wjf.10.2015.10.12.07.18.41 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:18:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> (=?utf-8?Q?=22=C3=93scar?= Fuentes"'s message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:22:07 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d 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:191339 Archived-At: =C3=93scar Fuentes writes: > Oleh Krehel writes: > >> I think slowly moving the Emacs C core to C++ is a good idea. The two >> languages are supposed to be largely compile-compatible, i.e. g++ can >> understand what was meant for gcc. > > Many times, while looking at the Emacs C sources, I thought "this would > be much simpler to understand and modify with C++." Furthermore, I would > volunteer to work on it. > > However, there are two factors against it: > > * If the rewrite happens, using a better language than C++ is > desirable. C++ is better than C, but it sucks too. Developing our own > subset of Elisp that can be compiled to native code and can > inter-operate with C looks more attractive. C++ doesn't suck. If C is good, than a subset of C++ that is C with constants, templates and classes, but without polymorphism or operator overloading is a better C - also good. > * Current maintainers are not likely to welcome the idea, for several > legitimate reasons ("don't know C++", "I dislike it", etc). And > Stallman would forbide it alright ("C++ in my Emacs? No way!" :-) I don't know if this was ever brought up. > Making the pill easier to swallow by restricting ourselves to the > simpler C++ features greatly diminishes its effectiveness too. I disagree. The features would be the current C features, only with better type checking and encapsulation. Oleh