Re: Preview: portable dumper

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Cc: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:28:25 -0800
> 
> We've all been contributing to Emacs for many years. I think we have a
> pretty good grasp of the issues and potential problems.  I understand
> that you think there's an existential risk that goes into this change,
> but I think you're mistaken, and a lot of other people agree. We all
> have access to the same information; it's unlikely (but not impossible)
> that you're the only one who can see certain potential problems.

Assessment of trends and their impact on the future, with all the
uncertainties involved, requires more than just processing the
immediately available information.

> Please give this change the benefit of the doubt.

I thought I was already doing that.  Isn't that why the code will be
on a branch soon?

> Even if your worst-case scenario comes to pass, the worst outcome
> outcome will just be more fiddly maintenance.

We already have such "fiddly maintenance" situation in several areas.
Font selection, font back-ends, character composition, complex script
shaping, and (to some extent) the interaction with X and its window
managers -- all of these are areas where bugs are left for months and
years without being fixed, and no progress is made to adapt Emacs to
the new technologies out there.

IOW, "the worst outcome" is already here.  I'm desperately trying not
to make it worse.

> I think the pdumper code is pretty clean; I'm open to suggestions
> for making it moreso.

I will definitely try to keep this in mind when reviewing the code.
However, code cleanness is not the main problem, based on the above
examples.  There's nothing unclean in the code in any of the areas I
mentioned.  The problems are elsewhere.

> If there's no one left who can understand pdumper, there's no one
> left who can understand the GC either.

GC is stable for many years, and "just works".  Bugs only happen there
when people make changes in GC code, for benefits that are not
essential.  If there's no one on board who understands GC, we can
simply disallow any changes in that area.

By contrast, the portable dumper is new code.  No matter how simple
and clean, it will take some time until it becomes mature enough to
raise to the current status of GC.  Until that happens, we cannot
afford being in the same situation as with GC.

> You won't have to touch this code.

I most probably will, and I have no reason to be afraid of that.  But
this isn't about me.