[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Preview: portable dumper

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:54:16 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 11/29/2016 11:35 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

I didn't compare the proposed portable dumper with what we have now,
That's our fundamental disagreement, then. I am willing to settle for real improvements to Emacs even if they are not ideal. And I think that this sort of willingness is more likely to attract contributions from developers.

leading a project to be viable in the
future needs to look at the reality, not at our wishful thinking
Daniel's proposed change consists of code that works and that runs fast. Isn't that reality? And in contrast, isn't the lread-based approach wishful thinking?

> When did you last try to hire a C or C++ programmer?

I don't *hire* them, I *create* them. I currently have 450 undergraduate students, and C++ and C are the only programming languages that they have all written and debugged code in. (This is not just my decision; it comes from our faculty's curriculum.) According to Philip Guo's 2014 survey, the most popular languages used in teaching computer science in top U.S. universities are Python (25-30%), Java (20-25%), C/C++ (10-15%), and MATLAB (5-10%). So from what I can see, the C pipeline is by no means empty.

Anyway, although C has probably passed its peak and will surely die out eventually, it's unlikely for this to be anytime soon. The prospect of its demise shouldn't materially affect our choice of Emacs dumping technology in the meantime.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]