[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:21:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
Nic Ferrier <address@hidden> writes:
> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I think there's a somewhat greater cultural overlap between Emacs Lisp
>> and Common Lisp people ("get things done") than between Emacs Lisp
>> people and Scheme people ("interesting academically").
>>
>> Anyway, I think the dangled sorta-promise that Emacs would eventually
>> shift to Guile might have stifled Emacs Lisp development. Whenever
>> somebody has brought up the issue of evolving Emacs Lisp (to
>> multi-threadedness or whatever's fun), they're usually discouraged by
>> others piping in with "oh, Emacs is moving to Guile, anyway, so don't
>> bother".
>
> I don't think that's true.
>
> From my perspective, what's stopping more people getting involved is the
> community, which is sometimes quite negative and the tooling, which is
> baroque.
Well, let's take a comparison:
git shortlog -s --since "1 month ago" origin/master
in a current GUILE repository gives
2 Andy Wingo
while in a current Emacs repository it gives
4 Alan Mackenzie
1 Alp Aker
4 Christoph Scholtes
1 Christopher Schmidt
5 Daniel Colascione
1 Detlev Zundel
27 Dmitry Antipov
50 Eli Zaretskii
1 Fabián Ezequiel Gallina
26 Glenn Morris
1 Ivan Shmakov
5 Jan D.
1 Jay Belanger
1 João Távora
1 Kan-Ru Chen
1 Karol Ostrovsky
3 Katsumi Yamaoka
8 Ken Brown
1 Ken Olum
1 Lars Ljung
2 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
4 Leo Liu
15 Michael Albinus
1 Michael Heerdegen
34 Paul Eggert
1 Rasmus Pank Roulund
1 Reuben Thomas
9 Sam Steingold
16 Stefan Monnier
2 Thierry Volpiatto
1 YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
8 martin rudalics
That does not particularly make Emacs look like a project keeping people
from getting involved. Of course, the project/repository structure of
both projects is different, but the basic idea that forward-looking
development happens in the master branch is loosely common to both.
If we take GNU LilyPond, incidentally based on GUILE 1.8, for reference,
we get something like
git shortlog -s --since "1 month ago" origin
60 David Kastrup
4 James Lowe
6 Janek Warchoł
3 Jean-Charles Malahieude
4 Julien Rioux
5 Keith OHara
19 Phil Holmes
3 Trevor Daniels
1 Walter Garcia-Fontes
Now this is a project that has to suffer from a lead developer who is
considered to be sometimes (or more) quite negative, and the tooling,
namely GUILE 1.8 which is considered outdated and unmaintained for
something like 5 years or so, can also be called baroque.
The result is a quite more peaked distribution of contributions per
developer than with Emacs which has sort of a plateau at the top.
So I think that the news of Emacs' demise due to the named reasons is
quite exaggerated. There is always room for improvement, of course, but
no particular need to panic.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/16
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, mhw, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/17
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/09/17
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Nic Ferrier, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/17
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/09/17
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Phillip Lord, 2014/09/17