Re: Emacs as an Org LSP server

[Russell Adams]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:12:43AM +0800, TEC wrote:
> > [ MS Taint ]
>
> I'm a stats student, so if you'll excuse the slightly odd perspective, I
> see the chance of MS being dodgy as a bayesian process. Previous
> knowledge creates an informed prior. It does not allow you to make
> conclusions without examining each instance on a case-by-case basis,
> only predictions. To do otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.

I don't credit MS as the source of the idea, only a supporter. So
let's omit MS from the discussion and distill this down.

Emacs is a unique and amazing editor. Emacs has special features that
enables truly remarkable data management and text editing in
Org-mode. Other editors cannot or have not been able to replicate
these features, or Emacs Org-mode would not be so uniquely
desirable. Thus if users want to use Org-mode, they should use
Emacs. It is freely available and like all worthwhile tools Emacs
takes some time to learn.

I understand LSP is about editor agnostic support for common
programming languages and editing operations, reducing code
duplication, and improving editing experience in all editors using
LSP.

As someone using and supporting Emacs, why should I care about LSP?
Perhaps if Emacs lacks a decent editing mode for a language then Emacs
could use LSP to provide missing features.

On the other hand if Emacs can provide an LSP to provide our unique
features to other editors which are not Emacs, does that hurt Emacs?

Emacs and Org are volunteer written and maintained. Volunteer time is
scarce and valuable because it is not paid and the pool of qualified
individuals to provide the specialty labor is small. I don't count
myself among that talent pool, however I advocate for the careful
utilization of their attention and try to contribute from the
sideline.

Given volunteer time for Emacs and Org is valuable, why should that
time be spent on technology that could ultimately decrease Emacs
market share? It seems self defeating to contribute to an effort which
could reduce future interest in Emacs, leading to less volunteer time.

If users and programmers for other editors want to try and replicate
the success and features of Org in their editor, they are welcome to
do so. However why should I want to actively contribute to that
effort?

I see it as a choice between choosing to spend our limited time on
maintaining and improving Emacs and Org, or spend time helping other
editors catch up. This is where MS enters, because they will benefit
and I find that strongly unpalatable.

I do understand I'm being protectionist, yet is that wrong? I support
the idea of other open source editors, but we do compete for users. I
expect other editors to be responsible for implementing their own
features.

If we had more volunteers and a surplus of their valuable time, and
Org didn't struggle for time and attention for maintenance and
improvement, perhaps I would be more supportive of collaborative
efforts between editors. Perhaps I could even ignore that evil
monopolists might indirectly profit.

So in summary, why should anyone contribute to exporting our unique
features to other editors instead of investing that time making Emacs
better?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3