Re: Emacs vista build failures

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:
> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > > > > Are you saying that my hacking on the Windows Emacs doesn't benefit
> > > > > > others, including Emacs on other platforms?
> > > > > You don't have time left for getting Emacs-Bidi to run on any platform,
> > > > > right?  Now it is, of course, your choice what to spend your developer
> > > > > time on, like it is everybody other's choice, too.
> > > > Maybe the easiest way to give Eli more time for that is give good
> > > > support for needed tools on w32?
> > > That sounds suspiciously like "throwing good time after bad time", to
> > > borrow a management term.  It really sounds like a bottomless pit: you
> > > can throw more and more time that way, and the results will be more and
> > > more tasks.
> > I am surprised, David. Where are your arguments?
>
> Huh?  Your proposal is that "maybe the easiest way" to give developers
> diverted by w32 more time is by diverting more developers to w32 on more
> general tasks.

I am suggesting that this might save time. I have given the arguments 
for that earlier.

> > > > 2) The other reason I guess is important is attitude. If a lot of
> > > > people with good reputation says that working on w32 is not that
> > > > important then those with a more admiring mind might agree without
> > > > really diving into the subject. That shows up in code quality later.
> > > I don't see a problem.  If people spend the time on other things than
> > > w32 support, then it is likely better invested.
> > Why are you just guessing?
>
> You wrote "I guess", not me.

Yes, but you did not. But it looks to me you are guessing. What I mean 
is that I think it is better to write "I am guessing" or "this is my 
opinion" instead of stating once own believes as true facts. (Not that I 
always remember to do that.)

> > > Keeping this compatibility in mind means aiming for abstractions and
> > > modularization and APIs which generate whole new subsystems and lots
> > > of independent fragilities.  At each particular point of coding, the
> > > compatibility costs may be tolerable.  But they add up.
> > The Mozilla folks have done it.
>
> And there has been no cost doing it?

Of course there has been. But they would not at all be that big that 
they are now if they did not invest that effort.

> > > So in addition to the time sink for the proprietary system developers
> > > themselves, our compatibility layers add cruft complicating things
> > > for everyone.  I am not convinced that this offsets the advantages.
> > It is exactly this attitude I think is a problem. There is not only
> > costs there are also benefits.
>
> What about "offsets the advantages" did you not understand, except that
> I got it backwards, namely that it should read "I am not convinced that
> the advantages offset the complications"?

Sorry, I do not understand.

> > As long as you do not consider the benefits your arguments are valid -
> > and you will win the debate.  But that victory has a cost.
>
> Huh?  This is not a competition.  It is also not an election or decision
> forming process.  If arguments of mine are valid, there is neither a
> necessity to shoot them down, nor is there one to shoot others down.

Is it not more like a competition if you do not listen to and try to 
further also the argument that you do not like from the beginning?

> We are not in a process of choosing which direction we want to put
> blinders on.
>
> > What would it take to convince you?
>
> There is nothing to be gained by convincing me.  In particular since:

Ah, I think there is something to win by convincing you. I have read 
many good posts from you.

> > > Again: I am mostly talk and little work, and so I am hardly in a
> > > position to admonish anybody.