You say it like it was some design failure, but when there was just a single mode (which is the case like 99% of the time) there's little point to prematurely abstract away such details.
Well, you did speak about RCP and there's nothing at the RCP level happening between clojure-mode and CIDER. (all the RCP-related code is in CIDER) The APIs that are being used are things like "find the current Clojure namespace", sexp-related functions, etc.
Then you said it's "funny" that my ideas -- which you totally misread
-- are starting from some naive position that you already faced
15 years ago. Then you talk about your "big organization of people"
and your track record, that there's only two Clojure programmers in
this conversation, that we're not "subject experts". Instead of
technical arguments, you drop videos of your presentations on youtube
and links to your blog posts.
I don't want to write here again things that I've written about in the past (or presented in the past). I fail to see how sharing such resources is problematic in any way. You might have also noticed that most of the time I use the pronoun "we", because I certainly don't want to claim all the credit for the work done by the broader group of people who are part of clojure-emacs or have contributed to it. And I honest don't understand why you got so hung up on "subject matter experts". I'm not an expert in LSP and I wouldn't dare to lecture you how to do things in eglot, but I do know a bit about Clojure, nREPL and all the Emacs packages and I happen to know what we've tried and didn't work out. You want to brush this aside, for reasons that are still unclear to me.
I guess I rub you the wrong way for some reason, which seems to go both ways.
What "endeavour" is that exactly? Bringing clojure-mode/clojure-ts-mode to core or replacing them with 2 lines of code? And who started the conversation in a hostile manner? If I didn't happen to be subscribed to emacs-devel I wouldn't even know what was being discussed here, given how events unfolded. Is it really surprising I'd be unhappy about the communication on the topic so far?
> I'll leave him to speak for himself, but we've been collaborating
> a bit since the beginning and I've always intended that eventually
> clojure-ts-mode will become clojure-mode.
Oh maybe one one of the names you took will free up then. :-)
> CIDER will support clojure-ts-mode - that's another things we've
Sure I got that. And currently CIDER is strongly coupled to
implementation details of clojure-mode. So for your plans to take
place, this will require outlining the existing informal API between
the two realities: major mode and CIDER overlay minor mode. This
will be a good thing in itself, and hopefully it will allow other
Clojure major modes to take advantage of CIDER.
> By all means - go and re-create CIDER as well, oh all mighty
> Wizard of the RPC! :-)
I clearly wrote about integrating with CIDER, not rewriting it.
So, again, you're really reading things that I didn't write.
> Yeah, I'm totally making shit up just to sound important and
> you've exposed me to the world! Shame on me!
Let's see, you wrote in your many recent messages, just as an example:
> without an understanding of Clojure and its tooling ecosystem
> (and it's history) it's hard to make good suggestions about
> what makes sense and what doesn't.
Then you said it's "funny" that my ideas -- which you totally misread
-- are starting from some naive position that you already faced
15 years ago. Then you talk about your "big organization of people"
and your track record, that there's only two Clojure programmers in
this conversation, that we're not "subject experts". Instead of
technical arguments, you drop videos of your presentations on youtube
and links to your blog posts.
If all this is not a paternalistic attempt at dissuasion, it's at
least odd from someone who's already said he's not interested
in contributing to this endeavor, and who's not really being
asked to anymore.
> I'm juggling more projects that I have time for and the only reason
> I got involved in clojure-mode is that there was no one else willing
> to do the work that was required.
A good way to help solve your problem would be to contribute it to
GNU Emacs. I wouldn't expect to become experts overnight, but we'd
do our best.