Re: Init error message

[David Kastrup]

Le Wang <lewang(at@)yahoo.com> writes:

> >Kevin Reeder wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:14:10 -0800, Le Wang wrote:
> > 
> >> XEmacs is a fine emacs.  Use what you want.  But PLEASE don't go
> >> out of your way to antagonize people.
> > 
> > I'm puzzled by this last remark not only because the newsgroup is
> > titled GNU.emacs.help but also I'm wary of the delicate feelings
> > connected with peoples' relationship with their editor and chose
> > my words carefully.
> 
> I have "delicate" feelings about both my emacsen.  I think there are
> plenty of people in the same boat.  It's in my (and our) interest to
> see both efforts continue and thrive.

No.  It is very much against anybody's interest to see both efforts
continue and thrive separately.

There are some matters that are better implemented in one version,
and some matters that are nicer in the other.  There are some things
that are better documented in one, and some that are better in the
other.

Any programmer for serious applications needs to cater for both
Emacsen.  That means that he always has to program for the worst API
in addition to the better API, and with the worst documentation from
both Emacsen.  This takes even more time and effort than if he was
merely stuck with the worst from both Emacsen: programming for an
additional API means additional work even if that additional API might
be better and better documented, too (which it more often than not is
not).

If there was a completely different mindshare involved (like
KDE/Qt/C++ vs GNOME/Gtk/C), applications would simply exist and be
developed independent for both Emacsen.  But as it is, important
applications have to be made to run under both.  And every nontrivial
Emacs project has at least man-months of work wasted on the Emacs
Schisma.

I am not interested in assigning blame, and everybody will tell me
his point of the story and how he is the good guy and the other the
bad one, but I am not interested.

I am just not going to swallow the lie that it is in the very best
interest of all that every Emacs developer with nontrivial projects
has to jump through all sorts of hoops to cater for two incarnations
of Emacs.

I don't see this change in my life time, but I am not going to applaud
it.  It's wasting my time as a free software developer, similarly
like catering for Windows ports does.  One does it in order not to
cut a substantial user base off, but there is no fun in it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum