Re: Emacs Mac port

[Bozhidar Batsov]

I feel this discussion went in the wrong direction. Let's just focus on how much of the Emacs Mac port can we merge into GNU Emacs. It's clear at this point we can't get all the functionality in, but I'd still take every improvement that I can. 

On 1 January 2016 at 17:01, Ingo Lohmar <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 31 2015 23:47 (-0800), Daniel Colascione wrote:

> On 12/31/2015 11:36 PM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2016, at 15:54, Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> I probably shouldn't point this out, but Emacs on OS X already supports
>>> invoking AppleScript. There's no GNU/Linux equivalent. Quelle horreur!
>>
>> That's an external mode for users to install.
>
> No it isn't. Grep for ns-do-applescript.
>

To my knowledge, calling external AppleScript does not make anything
possible or easy that is not easy to do using other means (external
scripts) on GNU/Linux.

>>> Do you even care that your strategy hasn't been working?
>>
>> Emacs has been around longer than a huge amount of software and is bound to stay for a long time and outlive most of the editors that exist today. So it's hard to demonstrate that the "strategy" is not working. In fact, as was pointed earlier in this thread, a huge lot of Emacs users use it within OSX and *not* for it's ability to display emojis...
>
> Let's talk about how keeping features out of GCC led to the total defeat
> of Clang.

Firstly, you are switching the example from Emacs to GCC simply because
it suits your argument.  What "works" in one instance might not work in
another one, of course.

More importantly, you imply that the "total defeat of Clang" is the goal
of the GNU project and GCC in particular (presumably, something along
those lines is what you mean when you say a strategy "works" or does not
"work").  I do not speak for the project or for anybody else, but if you
read up on just the few most fundamental essays on/of the free software
movement, it should become very clear that this is completely besides
the point (and would be more closely in line with the "open source"
point of view).