sxemacs-devel
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Zeta, OS/2, Linux, Irix, Solaris (or Project Zolis)

From: Steve Youngs <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Zeta, OS/2, Linux, Irix, Solaris (or Project Zolis)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:08:26 +1000
Organization: The SXEmacs Project
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, linux)
* Johann Oskarsson <johann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

  > Thinking about Steve's words about dropping some platform support,
  > mostly becouse of crude ifdefs and workarounds I thought of another
  > way.

Mostly because I refuse to support Microsuck Windoze in any way,
shape, or form.  The fact that it is technically crap code and causes
more bugs than anything else is just a bonus. :-)

  >>>>>>>>>>> This may go to a chapter in the PPM <<<<<<<<<<

  > The way Linux (Linus?) goes is to have a special directory for
  > platform specific code in that platforms directory, obviously since
  > we're not doing the kernel*, we may have cpu and os directories
  > separate, but that's not the main point.

XEmacs already has something like this.  Look at `src/m' and `src/s'.

  > There is also the option to support more than one compiler, and not
  > just the One Given by RMS Himself.  That would probably include some
  > similar breakdowns, but let's not (please) just discard them.

I agree that we need to support more than just gcc.

  > Of note, the Intel C++ Compiler, icc, is free for open projects
  > (though only for x86 linux platforms), 

I don't know much (read: anything) about icc.  Is it just a C++
compiler or does it do C as well?

Please note that I have zero interest in using C++ in SXEmacs.

  > and the Borland C++ Compiler is also free for such use (though on
  > the x86 platform Who's Name Will Not Be Said).

What would be the point in supporting a compiler that only works on a
platform the we don't support?

  > P.S. I'm not seriously speaking for OS/2 support, 

Hehe.  I've always wanted to port XEmacs to OS/2, but my hardware is
too good for it and I can't install OS/2. :-(

Oh, how I miss thee, OS/2.

  > We can, though, look at the option to make the kernel a Sexy Macs
  > Module.  Which can lead to chicken and eggs problems when booting,
  > but that's beside the issue.

Hehe.  Maybe this could be overcome with a Sexy-Macs bios. :-)

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|                        In space,                         |
|             No one can hear you rip a stinky             |
|------------------------------------<steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>---|

Attachment: pgpy6UrSKKNFe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>