From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:25:48 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> 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 1444584389 3280 80.91.229.3 (11 Oct 2015 17:26:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:26:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 11 19:26:22 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 1ZlKO5-0003ML-7a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:26:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49229 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlKO4-0004IS-Bl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlKNj-0004Hn-KL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:26:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlKNe-0004B4-N0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:25:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]:35565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlKNe-0004Az-H3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:25:54 -0400 Original-Received: by pabve7 with SMTP id ve7so74411862pab.2 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:25:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oXE6bQDxsGXPn8BG+eS5PQUGBwAC80wIQef5v+huQrc=; b=lh8hT8YatAMHWN33nVf3tPdNEgz7Vfh4XbE01fFIhv7RUCn+fbpzJY9Q+paFFOu5Lu M0mbzH6+mRVlctUKFACeDOe/Cq9Ks21tQ7fCTYnJiiv9iiiUaOeXTbpSsRU9YBHYwpiS cHKRs2dNPoeTulwDD407mzBJtW8hXZwldC4D6q+I/laOFA5MJeg1kmw4nJDtLnaqAv5D YSS71x4m8KppD/emh41sRCDQvKQf35dvLejVTHJOgdGJUEmJeGXbh/A8a62W1XzcGrVk jwalCTOH3Wq9fBpNfU8bKT493c5/GanA5KZ0omZZNVGzoWOroilom5kDIUH8ovfXtOCG nbvw== X-Received: by 10.66.160.100 with SMTP id xj4mr29530416pab.39.1444584353877; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rm9sm13776554pab.14.2015.10.11.10.25.52 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9A5BBF2A5175; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:25:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Przemys=C5=82aw?= Wojnowski"'s message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:11:23 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230 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:191248 Archived-At: >>>>> Przemys=C5=82aw Wojnowski writes: > Recently I was going through Emacs C code and immediately one thing come = to > my mind: "Did anyone consider rewrite it a more maintainable language?" := -) Hi Przemys=C5=82aw, There is one reason I can think of not to rewrite Emacs in another language: Because the language it's written in is working for us. If C presented difficulties in terms of capability, efficiency, contributio= n, debugging, etc., that would naturally drive us toward another language. But= as it stands, C is well understood, easy to resolve performance issues, there = are superb debugging and analysis tools available, and the runtime is exceeding= ly mature. And, as some have said, C code represents only a fraction of what Emacs is = to the user. Switching from Emacs Lisp to another high-level language might be= a more interesting discussion, which you could take up with the people working on such projects, like Guile Emacs. If someone can prove to me that we gain= a lot and lose a little from such a switch, it's definitely worth considering! John