Re: [ANN] mc^2

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml gmail com>]

Hello,

On Sun, 10 May 2015 13:45:09 +0200
"Yury V. Zaytsev" <yury shurup com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 14:25 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> > Trivia quiz or what? Ok, unix rewrote multics bloat, lives so far,
> > multics dead for big decades. gcc "rewrote" a lot of older vendor
> > compiler crap. llvm/clang "rewrote" gcc to let vendors do more
> > compiler crap. Etc, etc.
> >
> > Less features is good. I consider mc a unix tool, it's not
> > replacement for command line (or overbloated vendor IDEs), it
> > should do not too many things, but do it right.
>
> So, are you undertaking to rewrite mc in the same way as llvm/clang
> folks "rewrote" gcc?

I considered that. But mc kinda works, and there're lot of stuff which
doesn't exist ore really not good enough (for example, llvm needs to be
rewritten in scripting language, yeah), I unlikely will ever get to it.
But if this talk will inspire someone else to do it - very nice. (I
recently got inspired to start another project I had in queue for ~10
years - that's how it works with people).

[]

> If not, then, I'm afraid that I'm not interested in continuing this
> line of the conversation.

... and the conversation is focused around priority of things to do,
which I argue should be fixing old bugs, then proceed with new things.
Because is "exciting new" is the only thing you're after, then
rewriting mc would be the best way to get a lot of that "new" and
"exciting".

> > And for mc, I'm sure it's not the first patch to integrate some
> > scripting.
>
> I'd be curious to learn about the previous attempts.

I don't imply I know them, but I can't believe over 20 years nobody
thought about that to a level of hacking something up. I'd have done
that long ago, if mcedit inspired me to do that, instead of
frustrating ;-).

> > Nice speech, but can we please have simpler issues which waited in
> > queue for years be tackled first? My list of *lacking* (not nice to
> > have, like plugins in scripting language) is simple and short:
>
> But wait, I have my own list! It's simple and short: fix the regexp
> stuff and directory compare. How about my list? And I'm sure that
> Egmont has his own list. How about his list? What makes your list
> better than ours?

There're half-dozen active people on this list. Couple of issues per
person = 12 issues. Let's be fair and consider tickets too: among
hundreds multi-year ones, there probably about same half-dozen which
still have people moaning behind them. ~20 issues to fix - not too bad.

Btw, directory compare would better be handled by scripting - there can
be multiple criteria which you may want to use, hacking scripted
source on demand would be cool. Regexp is core stuff, needs fixing,
yeah.

> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Yury V. Zaytsev



-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml gmail com