Re: New Package for NonGNU-ELPA: clojure-ts-mode

[Philip Kaludercic]

João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Aug 26, 2023, 21:15 Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> >> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 21:52:31 +0300
>> >> Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>> >>  manuel.uberti@inventati.org
>> >> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
>> >>
>> >> On 25/08/2023 08:42, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> >> > IME, the development model of Emacs is an important reason why Emacs
>> >> > is still alive and kicking almost 40 years since it was first
>> >> > developed.  And important major modes in Emacs are alive and kicking
>> >> > with it.  So inclusion in Emacs and the pains of adjusting to a
>> >> > different development model are justified if one wants the major mode
>> >> > to remain alive for many years to come.  Something to think about, I
>> >> > guess.
>> >>
>> >> Or the longevity stems from other reasons (e.g. good fundamental ideas,
>> >> unique proposition, being part of the original GNU system, ...), and
>> the
>> >> development process is the reason the current user base is a fraction
>> of
>> >> even Vim's (not to mention popular commercial offerings).
>> >>
>> >> Just an alternative POV to consider. In truth, could be a little of
>> both.
>> >
>> > Mine wasn't a POV, it was an observation based on many years of
>> > watching the development and being part of it.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong: This seems to be related to the fact that the
>> GitHub-model (thought it probably precedes it) of development has
>> motivated more and more individuals to maintain packages, instead of
>> organisations like GNU, Apache, etc.  Or at least I understand that if
>> there is a collective effort behind maintaining the components of a
>> system, contributors can come and go without a package being abandoned
>> -- this is especially true for Emacs due to the extensive
>> introspectability.  But it appears this reaches a limit, if a component
>> is too complex (CEDET was mentioned as one example, and if João were to
>> suddenly loose interest in contributing to Emacs, something similar
>> might happen to Eglot as well).
>

[...]

> I'm a bit perplexed why you picked me as the star of "what if
> he were to disappear?" but I guess I'm as good a candidate as
> Michael, Lars, Dmitry or so many others.

Mainly because I am under the impression that of all the contributors to
Eglot, you have the best understanding of LSP as a protocol.  But you
are right, it was mostly the first example that came to mind when
comparing it to CEDET.