From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Barry Fishman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <863alzd1mi.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <20080726080304.GA1419@muc.de> <20080729062138.GE8362@tomas> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217356179 15548 80.91.229.12 (29 Jul 2008 18:29:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 29 20:30:28 2008 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 4.50) id 1KNtxr-0002zU-M4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:30:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43104 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KNtwx-0006kk-DO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:29:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KNr0q-0000Sr-Ue for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KNr0q-0000Sf-Bk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57851 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KNr0q-0000Sc-7l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:20 -0400 Original-Received: from alsmtp01oc.mail2world.com ([74.202.142.144]:1395) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KNr0m-0002oz-9e; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:21:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail pickup service by alsmtp01oc.mail2world.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:20:37 -0700 auth-sender: bfishman@alum.rpi.edu Original-Received: from 71.0.147.208 unverified ([71.0.147.208]) by alsmtp01oc.mail2world.com with Mail2World SMTP Server; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:20:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080729062138.GE8362@tomas> (tomas@tuxteam.de's message of "Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:21:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2008 15:20:37.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[A767B1E0:01C8F18E] X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1+ X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:29:08 -0400 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:101709 Archived-At: tomas@tuxteam.de writes: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:00:19PM -0400, Barry Fishman wrote: >> Otherwise I am afraid that the "make GNU >> look like Windows" people will bury us in the sort of fragile C++ >> monoliths like Firefox, that leave most everyone out. > > Note that the basic architecture of Firefox is very much parallel to > that of Emacs: a C[++] core and a scripting layer on top to write most > of the user functionality in (Javascript + XML). Not that I am a big fan > of Javascript (even less of XML), I'd take Lisp over it any day, and the > sheer bloatyness of Firefox gives me the feeping creeps, but just to > point that out. I may be just repeating wrong information, but doesn't Windows (at least historically) use Basic and assorted data files as its extension facility. I assume Vista is moving toward .NET. As far as Firefox is concerned, I see things like: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Building_an_Extension It seems to be more a patchwork of extendable areas, rather that what is going on in Emacs. I think of Emacs as a lisp program which uses C components to improve performance and connect to OS facilities. I think Python has done the best job of doing Emacs style things. It is even developing Pyrex, a typed python subset to C translator, to avoid some of the fragile C macro hacks used in Emacs, Guile, and other C based Lisps. It is even REPL based. But it doesn't have the extendability and flexibility of Lisp. Unlike programing in Lisp, Python has the feel that you are talking down to a small child rather than a peer (child or adult). >> From what I understand, Emacs will be moving to Guile (or at least a >> Guile updated to meet its needs). Miles Bader writes: > This was sort of a vague goal a decade or more ago, but seems pretty > unlikely to actually happen. Scheme is going though a painful growth spurt (via R6RS), and its probably not stable enough to consider at the moment. Common Lisp has been excluded by RMS, although some people are going ahead via CL-EMACS. I assume he feels that its complexity would reduce the hacking community working on it. I think there is a continuum from "limited but simple" to "powerful but complex". Commercial applications can flourish working at the extremes, limited but simple for the user, powerful but complex for the internal developers. I think free projects really need to provide access to the middle of the spectrum where hacking can be a incremental process. The ideal would probably be to support the large numbers of people satisfied with the simple but limited area, but with support for more productive levels of "powerful but more complex" to keep a large development community happy. To me this requires the ability to dynamically build clean application specific sub-languages in the way only Lisp can do. My point is maybe some effort needs to be put on how Emacs ideas and shareable code can be used in a more general framework for building GNU applications. Guile, GDK/GTK seem to be steps in the right direction, but only if they could at least theoretically be used to build an Emacs that runs at least as fast as it runs now. But the Gnome juggernaut seems to be pulling in a different direction. One where Microsoft is leading the way. I just don't want it to overpower Emacs! I don't want my frame layouts to be saved in dozens of "~/.gconf/apps/emacs/**/%gconfg.xml" files! My own ~/.emacs file based setup has a growing "forward into the past" section where I roll back new default features that I find better living without. Please don't make it the bulk of my code. -- Barry Fishman