[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On Compatibility
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: On Compatibility |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:18:27 -0400 |
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 21:05 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> It is hypothetically possible to get all of the configured files
> right by hand, but in practice we didn't have enough years in our
> expected lives to do it. Perhaps you can show us how to do
> it. Assistance would certainly be welcome.
>
> Hack configure.ac, generate configure on another platform, continue
> hacking untill port is done. No need whatsoever to have autoconf on
> the target system (you could even cross compile!).
>
> Sure it is. Consider bash.
>
> So lets consider bash, what is wrong with it?
As I have already said, "legacy" does not mean "bad", and there is
nothing wrong with bash. But in the large scheme of things, bash simply
does not have a large enough user base to be of primary importance.
> Emacs must be complete and utter crap if you base things based on how
> long they have existed... And you'd be suprised how similar todays
> Emacs is to the Emacs that ran on ITS.
I probably wouldn't be surprised at all. Once again, I did not say that
legacy is bad. Like bash, the user base for emacs is tiny.
One does not design successful systems by focusing on the rather strange
desires of a small number of developers. One asks: how do I best support
the end users, and within that constraint, how to I keep the developers
interested? End users do not use emacs!
> Or m4. Hell, even Stu Feldman thought m4 was crap, and he wrote it!
>
> Care to give an actual reason why m4 is crap?
Nope. I'll leave that to Stu. But M4 is *both* legacy *and* crap.
shap
Re: On Compatibility, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/25