Re: Current State of CEDET in Emacs tree and standalone

[Joshua Branson]

Andreas Marschke <address@hidden> writes:

> I haven't looked into LSP in detail and probably should, but so far I think 
> what I want to do with 
> it should be possible with portions of CEDET/semantic. 
>
> Even if CEDET does not warrant continuation, how would you define obsoletion?

I actually don't know.  I'll have to think about that one.

>
> I'm working mostly with Java applications mobile native and server side as 
> well as small and 
> midsized nodejs projects. If LSP can work for these environments I'd be happy 
> to have a look.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andreas Marschke.
>
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 16:41, Joshua Branson <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>  Andreas Marschke <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  > Hi all!
>  >
>  > In a quest to add some improvements to CEDET/Semantic I came across the 
> fact of the splintered codebases people are potentially working on.
>  >
>  > We have the CEDET project on SourceForge with changes going beyond the 
> initial import into emacs. 
>  > And then there is the version shipped with Emacs.
>  >
>  > When comparing the code basis one of the most immediate things that struck 
> me, was the availability of tests and that there was even rudimentary unit 
> testing employed, This is not
>  the case
>  > for the code in Emacs tree.
>  >
>  > Are there efforts to import the code from Sourceforge anew into the emacs 
> tree or is it intended to remain there as it pertains to features not 
> intended to be shipped with Emacs?
>  >
>
>  Not to be a debbie downer, but is CEDIT worthwhile to continue?
>  (admittedly I really don't know much about CEDIT).  I'm under the
>  impression that semantic may not be needed, since microsoft is pushing
>  the LSP (language server protocal).
>
>  Just curious,
>
>  Joshua