Re: IDE

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "John Wiegley" <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:58:57 -0700
> 
> >>>>> Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > My already-stated impression is that it's over-specialized and tightly
> > coupled.
> >
> > Not saying that the problem domain is easy, but being able to use different
> > pieces of the solution separately would go a long way towards alleviating
> > the complaint that certain other parts are incomplete.
> >
> > Especially if it were easier to swap in different solutions for some of
> > those parts (and do entirely without some others), and do that in not too
> > many lines, all as part of the user's configuration.
> 
> You've taken the reply right out of my mouth, Dmitry. David's response was
> also very much in line with my thinking. As I said before, if CEDET were the
> answer to our questions, we wouldn't still be asking them.

Could it be that we don't understand the answer?

I'd suggest to be very careful with such conclusions.  They can only
be valid when based on a detailed analysis of what is and isn't in
CEDET, and on good knowledge and understanding of its design and
implementation.  My impression so far is that neither is particularly
true, and my evidence is the number of times Eric and David Engster
described some CEDET features that came as a surprise to us.

I'm quite sure CEDET has collected and expressed in code a lot of
experience and solutions to many problems that arise in the context of
building an IDE.  It's OK to discard that, if we sure that's the
proverbial 1st variant everyone throws away, but we need first to be
sure we know what we are discarding.