Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using Emacs for roughly three decades; it's my favourite editor. And for sure, LSP has been an absolute game changer. Worth noting is that LSP came from Microsoft as part of their efforts to build a better editor experience; and its integration with VSCode is largely unparalleled. For example: in VSCode the user doesn't have to understand how to install a language server, it just automagically suggests allo…
"savvy enough" for emacs these days for lsp is literally "M-x package-install lsp-mode" Earlier today I started up emacs in a C++ project after working exclusively in Rust, and I didn't have an lsp server for C++ installed. I did M-x lsp-mode and it prompted me (paraphrased): No language server for C++ installed, do you want me to go get one for you? Options are: clangd. Sure, said I, and it just went and installed i…
The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
151–160 of 162 posts
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ridiculous. The GPL explicitly allows people to make copies. What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. It's copyright that frames copying as stealing. In a world with copyright, the only way to counter that is copyleft. The fact GPL can also enforce inclusion of source code is a nice side effect of copyleft. But ultimately what we want is a world where software i…
> What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. Some of them sure. The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright. In a world without copyright I can release software, which can be written from the ground up or be based on something open source, doesn’t matter, and not share the code with anyone. Just th…
I think you are confused. We don't want the GPL. The GPL is a pragmatic solution to make software free in a world with copyright.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is setting up a situation where users will not be free. No. It is setting up a situation where users can choose between a free option A and a proprietary option B based on A. Being sad about A being too liberal is suggesting it’s more important for you that B doesn’t exist than that A exists. > If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software, I don’t. Contrary to GNU and FSF websites…
But it sounds like we have found agreement on the point that the MIT license is setting up an option B, where a person is blocked from contributing for legal reasons? That is the big difference between MIT and GPL. With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust). With GPL ... I mean it might be technically possible with some wildly creative approach but I…
Really? The MIT license explicitly allows you to "modify" the software without restriction.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. Some of them sure. The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright. In a world without copyright I can release software, which can be written from the ground up or be based on something open source, doesn’t matter, and not share the code with anyone. Just th…
> The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright I think you are confused. We don't want the GPL. The GPL is a pragmatic solution to make software free in a world with copyright.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it sounds like we have found agreement on the point that the MIT license is setting up an option B, where a person is blocked from contributing for legal reasons? That is the big difference between MIT and GPL. With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust). With GPL ... I mean it might be technically possible with some wildly creative approach but I…
> With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust). Really? The MIT license explicitly allows you to "modify" the software without restriction. https://opensource.org/license/mit/
I'm no lawyer, but it isn't even obvious to me that you have to MIT license a binary created directly from MIT licensed source code. "Software" seems to be the source code and therefore the binary probably isn't a copy or substantial portion of the MIT licensed program. Unless lawyers are redefining words on me it looks like I can compile MIT licensed source and distribute it under whatever alternate license I like.
But regardless, if the point of the license is to enable creating proprietary software, it is no stretch at all to speculate that it'll be used to create proprietary software.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright I think you are confused. We don't want the GPL. The GPL is a pragmatic solution to make software free in a world with copyright.
So you’re fine with software provided as opaque binaries without source code or only as SaaS? Because without copyright you’re going to get more of that and no licence is going to stop that.
Licences like MIT do absolutely nothing up further this goal. They don't even try to do it today even though we know it can be done. It seems convenient for software you might use now, but to contribute to it? It doesn't give developers any guarantee that their work will be received as free software by future users. You're essentially working for corporations for free. I want my work to be available for everyone.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re fine with software provided as opaque binaries without source code or only as SaaS? Because without copyright you’re going to get more of that and no licence is going to stop that.
No, of course I'm not ok with that! But trying to get rid of copyright for software and make access to source code a right is a huge task. That's why the GPL is a pragmatic solution. The GPL is something we can use today to build a foundation of free software and make the idea of software freedom normal and expected. This smooths the way towards a future where we don't need the GPL, but we've got a long way to go yet…
I assure you GPL doesn't either. You can jump up and down furiously waving GPL all you want. Nothing short of a paid legal team would enforce it.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What many free software advocates actually want is a world without copyright on software. Some of them sure. The subset of them who are GPL advocates are simply confused though. GPL is not possible in a world without copyright. In a world without copyright I can release software, which can be written from the ground up or be based on something open source, doesn’t matter, and not share the code with anyone. Just th…
I recommend this piece You and the author appear to be the same guy. To be sure, the piece itself is an academic exercise hypothesizing a world in which the MIT license were law. And in such a world, the GPL gestapo would continue railing against opaque binaries even if those binaries were shameless but legal ripoffs of someone's hard work. If I took emacs, modified it to be thread-safe, and distributed it as an opaq…
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#159It's weird to be building an Emacs clone nowadays. It's fairly clear that Vim and Emacs _both_ lost the editor wars, and VSCode has come out on top. That's not to say either Vim or Emacs are dead or will disappear, but building a clone of a niche editor is risking dooming the project to being a niche within a niche. If it's just because hacking is fun, then by all means have a blast. But if the goal is to compete wit…
I dream about a day when programmers stop being fervent zealots about tools they use and instead try to find pros and cons of their tools and try to borrow good ideas from each other.
This 'Emacs vs. Vim vs. VSCode, etc. etc.' comes from poor understanding the core principles of each of these things.
Can we discuss these things without emotional attachment, or even forget for a minute that they are "editors". Instead of trying to find who's wining "the editor wars" (is it even a thing?), can we instead talk about the big ideas behind them?
- What makes Emacs so powerful for many, and at the same time so intolerable by many others? The big idea behind Emacs is Lisp. Without understanding the core principles of Lisp, and by "understanding" I mean truly experiencing the dynamic nature of it, its malleability, the structural editing, 'true REPL', 'code is data', etc., it is quite pointless to even start such a discourse.
Lisp is amazing. I firmly believe that every programmer should gain good familiarity with Lisp. I am forever indebted to my younger self for forcing myself to learn Emacs and Emacs Lisp and for discovering the beauty of it. Learning Lisp made me a better programmer. I'm not claiming to be a good programmer today, but I was much worse before I learned Lisp. Lisp helped me understand FP, composability, meta-programming, logic, recursion, lambda calculus, symbolic computation, generative testing, and even type theory. And I'm quite sure, many other programmers can share the same sentiment.
- Without understanding, I mean not just "understanding", but heartfelt use of it for many months and maybe even years of the fantastic, remarkable idea behind modality and mnemonics of Vim, it is quite impossible to explain what makes it irreplaceable for those who learned its power. And by the way, there's no such thing as vim-mode. No other editor or IDE truly was able to recreate that model, with one exception - Emacs. None of the IDEs - IntelliJ, VSCode, XCode, Android Studio, etc., can properly emulate Vim-navigation. Only Emacs does a better way of vimming. Pretty much every other IDE fails to replicate Vim. Unless it's Vim/Neovim, vim-mode in all of them is just that - an emulation. However, Evil mode in Emacs feels much more natural. Sometimes, you forget that it's an afterthought, an extension, and not a built-in functionality. And that's due to the power of Lisp. Also, these days, there's ton of interesting stuff getting build on top of Neovim, because now you can use Lua instead of vimscript. And with Fennel - a Lisp that compiles to Lua, one can build some really interesting extensions.
- Now, VSCode fancies the idea of being built on top of a web browser engine. Turns out, it ain't such a bad idea after all. Perhaps Vim and Emacs should also one day try to have their own, built-in web browsers. I mean truly built-in, so one can extend it and change it and build things on top of it.
I guess, it turns out there's no such thing as "editor wars". VSCode is more popular today because certain ideas behind it make it appealing for many people. For the same reason, certain ideas make Vim and Emacs more appealing for others.
Re: The Emacsen family, the design of an Emacs and the importance of Lisp (2023)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, of course I'm not ok with that! But trying to get rid of copyright for software and make access to source code a right is a huge task. That's why the GPL is a pragmatic solution. The GPL is something we can use today to build a foundation of free software and make the idea of software freedom normal and expected. This smooths the way towards a future where we don't need the GPL, but we've got a long way to go yet…
[MIT] doesn't give developers any guarantee I assure you GPL doesn't either. You can jump up and down furiously waving GPL all you want. Nothing short of a paid legal team would enforce it.
MIT and similar are simply roundabout ways to make it public domain.