Re: Development Speed

[xenodasein]

Quoting: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-12/msg02139.html
From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Development Speed
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 14:41:18 +0200

> If you show the code that you tried...

My example was finding out that I couldn't create a minibuffer frame
from terminal, either to use it as the second background frame in the
terminal, or possibly to display it in a second terminal or GNU Screen
side by side.

> No, they don't.

> They don't even if the behavior is the same (why is that unfortunate?)
> or if it is not the same (assuming the differences are either
> self-evident or documented).

> No, there should be (ideally) only one set. Applications should be
> free from dealing with this distinction as much as possible.

IIRC there are other features like (images? svg? videos?)
that which suggest that terminal and graphical interfaces are already
diverged and have different capabilities, as they should, by their
nature.  Otherwise, why have functions like "display-graphic-p"?

> Maybe you should report a bug to the developers of that package,
> then. The Emacs development philosophy is what I described

My personal preference is using Emacs as a terminal editor most of the
time, and I would be all for Emacs being a terminal-first software,
but my impression is that it simply isn't, anymore.  However, this
doesn't mean that I consider GUI Emacs a bad idea.  Relevant:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-12/msg02034.html

Forgive my over-enthusiasm but I really care about Emacs being a
great terminal editor.  The only usable ones out in the wild right
now are Emacs and Vim.  As the world rushes to slap foundational
software like text editors inside friggin' web browsers, and Vim
having g0t_f0rk'd, this is the time to strike.