John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com> writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
> > That said, it's probably possible to use Perl as a scripting language
> > as long as Emchars and bufbytes are carefully kept opaque to the Perl
> > interpreter. Which will, of course drive Perl programmers up the
> > Wall. And further increase opposition to Mule, I suspect.
>
> Just out of curiosity (as I don't follow the newsgroups that much),
> how many people are opposed to Mule?
Many people view it as needless bloat, and I can't say I don't
sympathize with them.
> I had the impression it was pretty well established, having been
> adopted by both FSF and XEmacs.
"Well established" is far from it. You can compile XEmacs without
Mule, and I suspect most people are doing exactly that. Not without
good reason, mind you.
A scan of xemacs-mule during the last week will show you only some of
the innumerable problems with Mule.
