Steve Youngs writes:
> * 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. :-)
Well, I'm not going to argue for MS Crap support, but I presume there
will be a hacker that wants to one day, and I want us to be prepared
for it. We'll be no better than the current XEmacs team if we just
shut her out in the cold. This would fall under the general category
of a new platform support in the PPM (which is yet to be written).
If no such hacker shows up, then there won't be MS Crap support, final
;)
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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'.
Err, k, I'll take a bit of a look.
> > 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.
Great ;)
> > 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.
Please (also) note that I'm a much stronger C++ hacker than in C or
even lisp. Are you afraid of C++? Classes? Templates? Or code bloat
with stuff like exceptions? If it's just code bloat, I'm with you, I
don't want bloated code for my lovely PS2 with her puny 32 megs of
ram.
There has been some work to make XEmacs compile with a C++
compiler, though I've not tried it myself (yet). Even if the code is
just C. It is used for stronger type checking and stuff, I think.
> > 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?
None whatsoever, I just wanted to point out it's availability for free
software.
> > 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.
On a side note, IBM seems to be supporting OS/2 throughout the end of
this year, at least. (Though you'll probably have to pay for that
support).
> > 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. :-)
Or some extensions to grub? :P
Have fun,
Johann
|