4 ms·
Too often it seems RMS is why GNU can't have nice things.
by JulianMorrison 12y ago
Too often it seems RMS is why GNU can't have nice things.
- fleitz 12y agoRMS would never let practicality get in the way of ideology. The GNU/RMS is best because you're free! (As long as your computing needs are a text editor, compiler, and some unix system utils)
- rurban 12y agoThat's why I believe their FFI plans are doomed. We implemented FFI's for emacs over the last decades, but RMS always strongly opposed it, because you could call windows DLL's then. gtk-emacs e.g.
- deng 12y agoRMS is fine with an FFI as long as you cannot use it to inject non-free code. This is usually done by requiring an exported symbol saying that the code is GPL compatible. GCC does it this way: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugin-API.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugin-API.html
- rurban 12y agoBut you cannot call that a FFI then. A FFI is the abbrevation for "Foreign Function Interface", not "Friendly Function Interface". FFI's are not sugar coated.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 12y agoIf he made the opposite call, and adopted CLisp, you'd be complaining about him anyway, in a thread about some unexpected compatibility problem or whatever. It gets tiresome even to watch.
- JulianMorrison 12y agoUh, no. Common Lisp is sensible. It's multi-implementation and several of the implementations are JVM levels of fast, while others are highly portable. There's a community, standards, and libraries. It's not where the froth of lisp experimentation is happening, but it's effective and a known quantity.
- deng 12y agoYou are aware though that without RMS we wouldn't have Emacs?