From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id eMHZCua6119dGwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:20:06 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id uMCjBua6118pGgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:20:06 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6309402D6 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40694 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kotO8-0000pw-9Y for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kotLB-000842-Kf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:17:02 -0500 Received: from se18.route25.eu ([2a00:f10:400:4:1c00:18ff:fe00:1617]:35004) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kotL6-0006H5-DT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:17:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:16:49 +0100 From: Russell Adams To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server Message-ID: <20201214191649.GH6352@maokai> Mail-Followup-To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org References: <87o8kf69tm.fsf@ucc.asn.au> <87v9d66l75.fsf@gmail.com> <87a6ugpftr.fsf@gmail.com> <877dpkpefs.fsf@gmail.com> <873608pai7.fsf@gmail.com> <20201214180549.GE6352@maokai> <87wnxkntc4.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wnxkntc4.fsf@gmail.com> X-Originating-IP: 185.87.184.57 X-SpamExperts-Domain: out.pcextreme.nl X-SpamExperts-Username: 185.87.184.57 X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5xiExUbNqvmdkLSOzf1W2Y3z8hkeSqZT0W1YMl0fRDa99cV PSoHm0W/3adFfiYl2nvtwjxknc9u2ejZKm4rCFP//T4GcPvCLvSpAEEGy7kYxsD3QRUnhlexiXT3 xXuXeIhevFP+kOiMW3ZJfjMJYMEj+gaXrHkgRC7/tI3CjXmVyhfhMr/zRGoUL5DcCK43sELHh0cQ L0Ci0sRm4Wh/iZxmcnZxVy8ViTP19ed7Jib++sztdQUSqk/AeLi65+4s/LrywTM2yEHEhvC9Izsy /NENTMQ3Kg3hL2oXz5A5E5R/dS4GkJ5hfB+qWugfDEytZYoACfRtBjLzEjgIZNLWhI/Mshn3T8Ox KyIrAogwLlirll+u0Sc2bgjgy6NE5WzPnrJ1fJyKyenPq733oZ8bAyJmHQrtppYmxMktfUX7kfB+ UdezYqxGMqsKjARq8PBC4qgxMmglBiLsgrvXOb7qEGUwgxHIagHkgJmlqPNWnLI1oovhSJcbnX/H QqL/X9rNCJCc6iESJvKm1NV8gkr+Wu8ScVDXinOVyuIpITQ9z3M3DO7OWuqF1+w/pTOKTb9S094Y pt+I0qihNlbcZhjlytFPTTvNtPM4QR0IEsPmQZzP/n4NHr4858bpsMOxsVKkVdo5y9phFQNqs3ow 7qoYE68Mb9qUxf0isHFqyjYDGBkd2y32EoSnB0KQ6B3xt8UP9IrQLp/miaSDdXxJiAZb1EzkDw0J UO/SMw1JqaZJdGBLj4Yurds88xJcpLJgK76+FvepmBcJF0+xwNJiXUFLIHPGctgzcDoFd+96Xw4Q UNtTncaOn0+WJUUa3BJTNKQ18zDN24asJdvYl1Y19r9fXlcpDneFtYF4v0IUhnwA7zUt/ygkKg3C UVSz51jczPLYUPONvxgu6jFRoaLzVpT+CP36s6RbLfB6BI3XJUys1lM3IMGhDC7qKEsgLqHNXMxe jlB49DjiWowOnKvI8aF4jzAuZNIARVagEMhjyGL5llQ69151eclHOr67cHgLgz4Hvn0= X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@semaster01.route25.eu Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:f10:400:4:1c00:18ff:fe00:1617; envelope-from=rladams@adamsinfoserv.com; helo=se18.route25.eu X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.81 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8B6309402D6 X-Spam-Score: -1.81 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: ivAFj2M75XMI On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:12:43AM +0800, TEC wrote: > > [ MS Taint ] > > I'm a stats student, so if you'll excuse the slightly odd perspective, I > see the chance of MS being dodgy as a bayesian process. Previous > knowledge creates an informed prior. It does not allow you to make > conclusions without examining each instance on a case-by-case basis, > only predictions. To do otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy. I don't credit MS as the source of the idea, only a supporter. So let's omit MS from the discussion and distill this down. Emacs is a unique and amazing editor. Emacs has special features that enables truly remarkable data management and text editing in Org-mode. Other editors cannot or have not been able to replicate these features, or Emacs Org-mode would not be so uniquely desirable. Thus if users want to use Org-mode, they should use Emacs. It is freely available and like all worthwhile tools Emacs takes some time to learn. I understand LSP is about editor agnostic support for common programming languages and editing operations, reducing code duplication, and improving editing experience in all editors using LSP. As someone using and supporting Emacs, why should I care about LSP? Perhaps if Emacs lacks a decent editing mode for a language then Emacs could use LSP to provide missing features. On the other hand if Emacs can provide an LSP to provide our unique features to other editors which are not Emacs, does that hurt Emacs? Emacs and Org are volunteer written and maintained. Volunteer time is scarce and valuable because it is not paid and the pool of qualified individuals to provide the specialty labor is small. I don't count myself among that talent pool, however I advocate for the careful utilization of their attention and try to contribute from the sideline. Given volunteer time for Emacs and Org is valuable, why should that time be spent on technology that could ultimately decrease Emacs market share? It seems self defeating to contribute to an effort which could reduce future interest in Emacs, leading to less volunteer time. If users and programmers for other editors want to try and replicate the success and features of Org in their editor, they are welcome to do so. However why should I want to actively contribute to that effort? I see it as a choice between choosing to spend our limited time on maintaining and improving Emacs and Org, or spend time helping other editors catch up. This is where MS enters, because they will benefit and I find that strongly unpalatable. I do understand I'm being protectionist, yet is that wrong? I support the idea of other open source editors, but we do compete for users. I expect other editors to be responsible for implementing their own features. If we had more volunteers and a surplus of their valuable time, and Org didn't struggle for time and attention for maintenance and improvement, perhaps I would be more supportive of collaborative efforts between editors. Perhaps I could even ignore that evil monopolists might indirectly profit. So in summary, why should anyone contribute to exporting our unique features to other editors instead of investing that time making Emacs better? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Russell Adams RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com PGP Key ID: 0x1160DCB3 http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/ Fingerprint: 1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F 66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3