Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  
> address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:59:44 +0100
> 
> > FWIW, I think David made a mistake when he gave up.
> 
> Running out of motivation is not a choice.

It's not an objective condition, either.

> And anyway, Richard explicitly stated that he wanted lots of time
> for his resentment over the discussion to abate before he would even
> start discussing the issue with people he trusts.  So it will be a
> considerable amount of time before David even has a chance of being
> informed whether his work will end up in the wastebin.  That sounds
> like a solid reason to rather work on something else to me.

It's clearly a judgment call, not something clear-cut or carved in
stone.  I gave you my assessment of the decision.  I don't blame
anyone, least of all David himself, I just wish he would find
resources to persevere.

> > I faced a similar disheartening intention (for quite different, but
> > still political) reasons when I worked on bidi support.  I decided to
> > disregard and proceed, and the result is before your eyes.
> >
> > There's nothing like working code to convince people.
> 
> As far as I remember, company-mode had working code for LLVM-based
> completion.

So?  It's working code, isn't it?  Anyone can use it, can't they?

> And we are currently just seeing a veto on integration of
> working initial LLDB support into gud.el.

Maybe I need new glasses, but I see no veto.  A request to hold on is
not a veto.

And, FWIW, from my POV supporting LLDB is not an important issue,
certainly nowhere as important as making Emacs more like modern IDEs.
When LLDB gets anywhere near GDB in functionality and usability, let
alone surpasses it, maybe then I might get interested.  For now, it's
a niche debugger, not unlike dbx.  Why should we care so much if LLDB
support will land today, next week, or next year?  We shouldn't burn
so much energy on even discussing it.

> > Free Software is about freedom of developers as well.
> 
> Not at its core.

Yes, at its core: the freedom to change the code requires a developer
who can actually do that.  We the developers are users of that freedom
just like any other user.  Who do you think will be the most frequent
users of an IDE-like Emacs, if not us?  Who needs smart completion,
refactoring, and other niceties, if not us?