[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Nano-improvements

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Nano-improvements
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 19:10:58 +0300

> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 19:58:44 +0400
> From: Dmitry Antipov <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> On 07/03/2014 06:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I didn't say "we don't need nano-improvements".  I said they should
> > take a backseat to more substantial improvements in functionality,
> > especially user-visible functionality.
> IMO all of this friction just comes from the different views on what
> Emacs is.

I don't think so.  But if it's true, then perhaps we could benefit
from asking the project lead to express their vision of what are the
project goals, both near-term and long-term, and what are non-goals.

> If this is just an editor, you're absolutely correct. But if
> someone treats it as a unique Lisp runtime system which can do a lot of
> interesting things beyond evaluating s-expressions, an opposite
> conclusions are much more likely. For example, what is more important -
> a) ability to edit huge files without loading all data into memory or
> b) JIT compiler from byte code to native code? If we're developing
> just an editor, a) is much more important, at least to match the
> proprietary competitors like SlickEdit; but if we're developing the
> language for the specific problem domain (and want to extend this
> domain as our language becomes more and more faster), b) can be a step
> to a lot of impressive opportunities.

I think all of the above is important; they are by no means

I'm saying that there are too few changes in any of the
above-mentioned areas (and then some).  So their relative importance
is not the issue, because they all currently eat dust, while most of
our energy is applied elsewhere.

reply via email to

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