David Kastrup writes:
Out of idle curiousity, why *do* you bother to write? I would think
you would be a member of the Steve Yegge camp, aka the "the big
problem with XEmacs is that its developers don't know that the game
ended 5 years ago" camp.
The more you let yourself cut out, the more XEmacs becomes a
playground for programmers with their own personal projects
There's nothing wrong with that if that's what the developers want to
do.
forming a spotty feature landscape instead of an encompassing
editing
solution.
Being a spot on the feature landscape doesn't seem to harm the
popularity of vi, though.
Getting "back on track" is not useful if you can't pick
up speed.
That I agree with. One important question is whether it needs to be
in the same direction as Emacs, though.
If you say that is not "stuff that's doable", then you
are having a
problem in my opinion. Then we are more talking about "where do
you want to stay today".
Problem, yes, although possibly one that can be ignored. Namely: the
obvious place to recruit XEmacs developers is from the Emacs
development community. Obvious solutions are not always good ones,
though, and that one is likely to get serious pushback from RMS and
others on the lunatic fringe of free software. If we're not going to
recruit there, maybe we don't need to emulate as much of the Emacs API
as we have done in the past.
But "where do you want to stay today", no. Anybody who follows Emacs
devel lists will see that "where Emacs is" is hardly a desirable place
to go for a modern development community. Just because I don't want
to go there is no evidence that I want to stay where I am today.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta