[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:12:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> At any rate, it has been mentioned previously in this discussion that
> the Emacs developer list is not always considered a happy-go-lucky
> environment. So if it is the habit of GUILE developers to take out
> revenge on a project and its users for enmity with single developers,
> that's also relevant for making crucial GNU software depend on GUILE.
I don't see the Guile developers taking revenge on anyone --especially
not LilyPond as a whole-- but rather flaying off your efforts to take
revenge on them by passing on your anger.
No need to be happy-go-lucky, just less insulting.
You could probably continue taking part on guile-devel if you were more
cooperative.
> I think this interpretation of events is not making for a much better
> outlook. Particularly because Emacs development is more often than
> other GNU projects governed by unpopular political decisions. A habit
> of retaliation and "see-where-this-will-get-you" in order to pressure
> for a change in project lead is not likely going to work out well.
It's ironic that you would talk about retaliation and
"see-where-this-will-get-you" behavior, or am I misunderstanding? :-)
It feels more like that's your attitude, despite there being no pressure
from the Guile side.
> I don't think that you are better off selling this situation as a
> personal vendetta, and it is not like the GUILE 2 problem was not
> already there when I started to get involved with LilyPond.
Let's be honest here, it was obvious from your first mail on this thread
that there's something personal going on. I knew absolutely nothing
about your history on guile-devel (did not even recognize your name),
yet guessed immediately that there was something fishy.
>> Guile has authority over Guile-Scheme, but not over Elisp; it has to
>> and will support Elisp as defined by Emacs as much as possible.
>> That's pretty obvious I'd say.
>
> "This is not possible" will be defined under the constraints of GUILE
> remaining Scheme according to GUILE's vision of interpretating the
> Scheme standard and its further evolution.
Reminder that Guile-Emacs, in its current alpha state, already runs ERC,
Gnus, rcirc, Dired, term, comint, TRAMP, c-mode, etc. There will
definitely not be much that is impossible.
> The question now is not where GUILE will take Elisp but rather whether
> its interpretation of Elisp can get close enough to make a switch
> feasible in the first place.
See above.
Also, compilation, not interpretation. :}
Taylan
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Rasmus, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/18
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Rasmus, 2014/09/18