David Kastrup writes:
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> My *vision* is that the most likely way to solve this problem is for
> XEmacs to provide some killer feature(s) that you can't get anywhere
They don't grow on trees.
No, they don't grow on trees.
They grow upstream,
Realistically? No, the killer features we need don't grow upstream,
either. Killer applications for Emacsen often do, yes. But
historically, applications for innovative features of XEmacs have
almost always been developed in-house or downstream, by commercial
firms (such as Lucid, BeOpen.com
, and Morgan Stanley). "Upstream"
targets GNU Emacs primarily.
I really don't see that changing, no matter how much effort we devote
to keeping the AUCTeX, CEDET, and Gnus maintainers happy.
Nor do I think maintaining GNU compatibility is a good reason for
anybody to develop XEmacs. Use it, yes. Develop it, no. We need to
do something different, and at least potentially better, or there's no
point. So from that point of view, too, in the near term we really
need to concentrate on *our* features, not GNU's.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list