[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:44:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> skribis:
>> From: address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès)
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:51:26 +0200
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>> > In any case, Emacs can never be satisfied with the current Guile
>> > infrastructure for i18n. There are too many shortcomings, some of
>> > them were mentioned here. Yes, Guile can be fixed to be better in
>> > that area, but no one is working on that, AFAIK, and what's more
>> > important, lead Guile developers don't even agree Guile should move in
>> > that direction. (This especially puzzles me: to have a good example
>> > before you and not follow it? Emacs learned what it has now the hard
>> > way, have paid in blood, sweat and tears for that knowledge, and still
>> > Guile developers think they "know better"? Present parties excluded,
>> > of course.)
>>
>> My point is: Emacs can keep doing its own thing in that area.
>
> Of course. But that takes away a serious chunk of arguments in favor
> of Guile-based Emacs, for 2 reasons: (a) there will have to be a
> non-trivial translation layer between the two, and (b) a very large
> part of Emacs's C core will have to be left intact, instead of
> removing it because Guile already does that.
AFAIK nobody claims that Guile is the right choice due to its i18n
support.
The main claims are: the compiler, VM (which would no longer be part of
Emacs), FFI, libraries, etc.
That chunk isn’t taken away.
>> (And I would guess that neither C++, nor Lua, nor anything else would
>> provide an i18n infrastructure that would satisfy Emacs out-of-the-box.)
>
> Of course. But the Guile alternative is being brought up as being
> much better than those others. If we leave the strings and i18n
> alone, a large part of that argument goes away.
Guile strings are fine, thank you. I’ve used a bunch of
language/environments and honestly, I’m definitely not ashamed of what
Guile provides, contrary to what David and you seem to imply.
I fail to follow the reasoning anyway, but I don’t have much to add.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, (continued)
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Przemysław Wojnowski, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/10/16
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Ludovic Courtès, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18