[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Is there a need for a module system
From: |
Gerd Möllmann |
Subject: |
Is there a need for a module system |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Oct 2022 12:24:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 11:26:45 +0100
>> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>
>>
>> I was asking specifically about shorthands wrt to their use as a module
>> replacement, and I think tomas replied in that context.
>
> The shorthands were added for a specific purpose that should be clear
> from those discussions. It can also be used as a "poor-man's
> packaging system", and some contend that it is more than enough for
> that purpose.
That's what I wanted to know more about. Specifically, the whys and
hows.
> But that's not why we added it, and I don't necessarily
> agree with the opinions which consider shorthands to be a basis for
> Emacs package system, let alone a good one.
Ok.
> Moreover, from my POV, the jury is still out on the question of
> whether we at all need packages in Emacs. "Programming in the large"
> doesn't sound very relevant to how Emacs Lisp is used. It is not a GP
> language for writing programs, it is a language for writing Emacs
> applications. The largest Emacs Lisp applications -- Gnus and Org --
> are nowhere near the bar which I'd consider to be "programming in the
> large".
Ok, here's a new thread, because that's interesting, and something I
don't agree with.
The reason being that I think one cannot look at specific Lisp programs
like gnus or org in isolation. If I look at Melpa, it says it has 5299
packages. Add GNU Elpa, for which I couldn't readily find the number,
and Emacs' Lisp, and subtract what's in common. That's pretty large
from my POV.
> I may change my mind, of course, but I didn't yet see any cogent
> explanation of why we would need packages in Emacs. People just tend
> to consider it self-evident, like some axiom.
Need is a strong requirement. Do we need it now? Obviously no, it's
working using naming schemes, more or less as dash.el and s.el show.
I'd rather ask is that a good enough solution? Can we do better? Is it
worth the effort? Can it be done in the first place? Does it perhaps
enable additional things?
Opinions welcome.
- Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, tomas, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, tomas, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/30
- Is there a need for a module system,
Gerd Möllmann <=
- Re: Is there a need for a module system, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/30
- Re: Is there a need for a module system, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, tomas, 2022/10/30
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/10/30
Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Stefan Monnier, 2022/10/30
Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Helmut Eller, 2022/10/30