François Pinard <pin...@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: > Once we get a working solution, the protocol remains the contact point. > The server could be replaced using other languages, and new clients may > be written for other editors (given they are extensible enough). My > goal is quickly getting something usable, so I selected the means that > looked fastest to me, and that's how Python got in the picture. > > Is there any incentive for rewriting the server in Emacs Lisp? For one, > even if rather bearable, Emacs Lisp is not my preferred programming > language. Moreover, I consider a bit wrong having to rely on an editor > for tasks wholly unrelated to editing. Other people are free to have > differing opinions, and do that rewrite, however.
It's not unlreated to editing, it's for collaborative editing! :) Anyway, I understand and respect your point of view. Moreover, it's nice of you to report on the mailing list, it helps to keep on eye. > If I really had more time and less pressure, I would likely have > selected Node (JavaScript) to write the server instead of Python. The > choice of JSON within the ColOrg communication protocol is a way, for > me, to leave that door opened. One not so hidden dream is to bring Org > mode a bit closer to Web browsers, if there are ways to do so. -- Daimrod/Greg
pgpEc4gg27uJw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
