John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com> writes:
> > To John: Keep the faith, and keep doing good work. There are lots of
> > people who want what you're doing. I suggest ignoring the attitude,
> > and focusing on the work rather than forking a new strain just because
> > some key people need to have their world views enlargened..
Like others, I cannot see how you can you can draw these conclusions.
I must have missed a lot messages. I can see one part of the debating
turning to some flamage, but that seems to be the tangent of linking
everything into the executable always. With which you agree. And even
if there is some flamage from some don't forget that 1. all the
disadvantages of e-mail discussion with tends to get more heated than
the argument actually is 2. It is only some. We are not one group that
goes off and agree on something and then start flaming you. You also
see the "internal" discussion making at the same time.
> If the immune system rejects my offerings, so be it. I guess I'll
> have no alternative but to continue with my forked variant or give up
> entirely. That's just the marketplace of ideas working its magic.
Everybody seems to agree that making it module is a good idea. I think
it is even possible to make the hooks such that you can make it look
to the outside as if there actually was a perlmacs even if XEmacs has
to go off and load the Perl module first. If you want to do it at as a
C modules. That is fine by me. Just submit patches that implement the
necessary hooks that allow more language binding. I am sure these have
a good chance of getting applied. That was what the C module interface
is for. To allow breaking up the huge feeping creaturism that XEmacs
is into to more maintainable bits. Putting a Perl interpreter into the
main code base is some what opposite to that.
Of course you will still get points of critique then like
1. The perl binding is weak. Q: Why do C module and not just exec()
Perl?
2. The binding is strong. That means the modules are allowed deep
connection into the main C internals. This will give maintenance
problems for sure and thus, Q: Is it worth it?
I think these reservations are justified. How ever I also think some of
these questions can be answered convincingly.
The moral of the story is: Don't take heated discussion here as a
"No". It is more of a positive sign for such big changes. If you think
the "XEmacs team" (whatever that means), is discriminating against
Perl you should go and read the archive to see the discussions about
binding Guile. And no they were _not_ unanonymously positive.
Jan
