Re: [PATCH] Flymake support for C/C++

[João Távora]

Clément Pit-Claudel <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2017-10-14 12:29, João Távora wrote:
>>> On 14 October 2017 at 09:00, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote: ​
>>> See ​
>>> http://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/user/flycheck-versus-flymake.html#flycheck-versus-flymake
>>> ​
>> 
>> That page is now completely outdated [...] please don't advertise a 
>> misleading comparison.
>
> That's a strong statement, and I don't think it's fair: this page is
> intended to help users chose between Flycheck and Flymake *now*.

I don't know if we agree, but to me, "misleading" is not the same as
"ill-intentioned": I don't think I in any way implied that the page, its
authors or its proponents are or have ever been ill-intentioned (and for
the record, I don't believe so).

I just don't think it makes any sense to advertise that comparison
and/or to make any decisions based on it right now. You must agree that
decisions are things that affect the future and that when they are based
on outdated information, they have a higher probability of being
misled. So that's why I characterized the page as "misleading" and
that's why I politely asked Reuben to stop advertising it.

> Your Flymake update hasn't been released yet, so an update to that
> page comparing against the unreleased Flymake would mislead readers
> into thinking that Flymake can do more for them that it really can at
> this point.

I also didn't ask anyone to update the page, though I volunteered to
help. Again, I just asked to stop advertising it as a decision-making
premise and explained why.

> We do have a serious interest in updating it :) Could you help?

I can certainly fill in the gaps that aren't clear from the Flymake
manual, if you have already read it.

> I'd love to mention that a new release of FLymake, fixing most of
> these deficiencies, is in the works.

I think that this very phrase added somewhere visible is just fine, with
optional love of course :-)

João