Current discussion

Current discussion

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

In dealing with Emacs and GCC I am trying to prevent several problems
of different kinds, that come from different directions.  They could
be worse than the lack of an IDE in Emacs.

Many of the people now arguing do not care about some of these
problems.  Rather than recognize that I am acting rationally in a very
difficult situation, they are treating me with contempt, in effect
treating the GNU Project (which GNU Emacs as part of) as an obstacle
to their goals.  This is closed-minded as well as disrespectful.

Some are saying, "Give up, it's hopeless to avoid those problems," but
I suspect that is their wishful thinking.  They want me to give up
trying so they claim it is hopeless.

I will not give in to this pressure.  However, I also do not want to
reflexively do the opposite (as I would emotionally tend to do).  I
want to make a good decision after careful thought.  If some of those
problems really can't be avoided, I don't want to make useless
sacrifices to do so.  On the other hand, I don't want to conclude it
is useless because nay-sayers claim it is useless.

The way to do this is to discuss the issue with a few people,
privately, who will pay attention to the problems and help me find the
best course.

Eli, can you join in?
John Wiegley, how about you?

I would want to ask one of the GCC developers to participate,
and also someone who is an expert on IDEs.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Current discussion

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> The way to do this is to discuss the issue with a few people, privately, who
> will pay attention to the problems and help me find the best course.
>
> Eli, can you join in?
> John Wiegley, how about you?
>
> I would want to ask one of the GCC developers to participate, and also
> someone who is an expert on IDEs.

Count me in.

John

Re: Current discussion

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-10-11, at 22:49, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> The way to do this is to discuss the issue with a few people,
> privately, who will pay attention to the problems and help me find the
> best course.

IMHO making this discussion public (maybe later, when the dust settles,
e.g. by posting it - or parts of it - somewhere on the internet) might
be informative for those of us who (1) are willing to learn something
about Emacs, about GCC etc. and (2) are interested in your philosophy
and not only in your code (for example, people like me, who disagree
with you about the principles you derive your philosophy from, but agree
with surprisingly many of your conclusions).

Just saying.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Current discussion

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:49:25 -0400
> 
> The way to do this is to discuss the issue with a few people,
> privately, who will pay attention to the problems and help me find the
> best course.
> 
> Eli, can you join in?

Yes.

Re: Current discussion

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Can anyone suggest an expert on refactoring who would be good to include?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Current discussion

[Alexis]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Can anyone suggest an expert on refactoring who would be good to 
> include?

i think that refactoring is something that's paradigm- and/or 
language-specific. For example, Java doesn't (afaik) have CL-style 
macros, so there might be refactoring opportunities available in 
the latter that aren't available in the former; and even in terms 
of OO, i imagine that the combination of CLOS and MOP would result 
in different OO refactoring opportunities in CL than in Java. This 
is why language-specific IDEs can be so powerful - they can 
utilise domain-specific knowledge rather than only being able to 
provide functionality based on the lowest common denominator.


Alexis.