Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emacs Lisp's Future

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#11

Post by mwfunk »

__david__ wrote: post #7
lallysingh wrote: post #2

I sent a note about using an elisp-on-llvm solution. Someone had done the work already, it appears: https://github.com/boostpro/emacs-llvm-jit

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism.

Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and the world is better for it. But nooooooooo, not RMS. He has to demonize anyone who is not 100% in lockstep with him on everything, to everyone's detriment, and throw his "adversaries" into a trash bin labelled "Others".

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. I have wished for so many years that RMS would care enough to provide the latter instead of the usual former.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#12

Post by CharlesMerriam2 »

This problem begs to think larger. Instead of starting with "we are missing these two critical features that the rest of the world has expected as standard since the dinosaurs perished", it might be interesting to ask "what sort of emacs language features would make it the best in the world!"

It is far easier to get a minimum product out when the eventual goal is the stars.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#13

Post by mappu »

mwfunk wrote: post #11
__david__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism. Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and…

Standard response: rms has probably done more for free software than anyone else in the world. We should be glad at least someone has such uncompromising idealism. Even if it's annoying and inconvenient from time to time.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#14

Post by derengel »

mwfunk wrote: post #11
__david__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism. Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and…

I don't see how he is demonizing anyone by calling them adversaries, the word "adversary" doesn't imply any evil at all, you really are just talking from your personal ego.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#15

Post by Blackthorn »

__david__ wrote: post #7
lallysingh wrote: post #2

I sent a note about using an elisp-on-llvm solution. Someone had done the work already, it appears: https://github.com/boostpro/emacs-llvm-jit

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

This is particularly funny because BSD code can be freely used in GPL'd products, but not the other way around.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#16

Post by __david__ »

mwfunk wrote: post #11
__david__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism. Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and…

> It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something.

Right there is the crux of the matter. RMS is only focused on the ideal. To him, "accomplishing something" is only relevant when the accomplishment is free software that can't be locked away in proprietary codebases.

Viewed through that lens, his actions and beliefs have been remarkably consistent for the past 30 years.

He really grates on people who don't share his idealism, and he's looked up to by people who do. He can be quite polarizing, to say the least.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#17

Post by __david__ »

Blackthorn wrote: post #15
__david__ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

This is particularly funny because BSD code can be freely used in GPL'd products, but not the other way around.

Well, it can if you use the GPL on the sum product. :-)

Still, I'm not really sure that it's very ironic, since his main beef is companies taking open source code and delivering closed source proprietary binaries to their end users. The whole GNU philosophy is about being guaranteeing that end users (or agents acting on behalf of end users) can always have source code with their binaries. BSD doesn't give you that guarantee. GPL does.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#18

Post by bane »

__david__ wrote: post #7
lallysingh wrote: post #2

I sent a note about using an elisp-on-llvm solution. Someone had done the work already, it appears: https://github.com/boostpro/emacs-llvm-jit

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom.

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#19

Post by eschaton »

Why not start with Hemlock or CLIMacs atop a CLIM implementation, or take the (MIT-licensed) ZWEI codebase and bring that forward? Is there really all that much in GNU emacs that is really widely used?

Re: Emacs Lisp's Future

#20

Post by rjsw »

eschaton wrote: post #19

Why not start with Hemlock or CLIMacs atop a CLIM implementation, or take the (MIT-licensed) ZWEI codebase and bring that forward? Is there really all that much in GNU emacs that is really widely used?

ZWEI (and ZMAIL) isn't Common Lisp, Kent Pitman worked on creating a set of diffs to it to make it compile in CL but I don't think they are freely available.
Post reply on HN