in which three programming methods are compared

«

»

There are, roughly speaking, three ways to develop large user-facing programs, which we will refer to here as 0) the Unix way, 1) the Emacs way, and 2) the wrong way.

The Unix way has been expounded upon at length many times. It consists of many small programs which communicate by sending text over pipes or using the occasional signal. If you can get away with using this model, the simplicity and universality it offers is very compelling. You hook into a rich ecosystem of text-based processes with a long history of well-understood conventions. Anyone can tie into it with programs written in any language. But it's not well-suited for everything: sometimes the requirement of keeping each part of the system in its own process is too high a price to pay, and sometimes circumstances require a richer communication channel than just a stream of text.

This is where the Emacs way shines. A small core written in a low-level language implements a higher-level language in which most of the rest of the program is implemented. Not only does the higher-level language ease the development of the trickier parts of the program, but it also makes it much easier to implement a good extension system since extensions are placed on even ground with the original program itself. I wrote about this in an earlier post on the live-development model Emacs offers:

If you have to use some tacked-on "plugin mechanism" to customize it, then you’re going to be limited at the very least by the imagination of the author of the plugin mechanism; only the things he thought you would want to do with it are doable. But if you’re using the exact same tools as the original authors were using to write the program in the first place, you can bet they put all their effort into making that a seamless, powerful experience, and you'll be able to access things on an entirely new level.

-in which a subject is attempted to be approached objectively, though such a thing is actually impossible

It's worth noting that this is the model under which Mozilla is developed. The core Mozilla platform is implemented mostly in a gnarly mash of C++, but applications like Firefox and Conkeror are primarily written in JavaScript, as are extensions. Following the Emacs way accounted for Firefox's continuing popularity even back when it was getting trounced by competitors in terms of JavaScript performance. Chrome's extension mechanism is laughably simplistic in comparison.

Finally for completeness sake, the wrong way is simply to write a large monolithic application in a low-level language, usually C++. Often half-hearted attempts at extension mechanisms are bolted on to programs developed this way, (usually in order to check off another box on a features list) but they are invariably frustrating and primitive and don't end up offering extension developers the same access to program internals that the developers of the original program itself have.

The Unix way makes particularly explicit the notion of composing small programs, but the Emacs way shines when a single runtime process plays host to a number of independent programs that can interact with each other gracefully. For instance, the Magit version control interface can run in the same Emacs instance as a SLIME session controlling a lisp project. They coexist in a complimentary way and compose together without interference. So rather than saying there are three ways to write large user-facing programs, it might be more accurate to say that there are zero good ways to write large user-facing programs and two ways to compose a number of small programs into a coherent system.

This is especially interesting to me right now since it has come to my attention that when it was rewritten in the transition from version 2 to version 3, GNOME has switched to the second way via an embedded JavaScript runtime, which means things are about to get very interesting.

Update: I've switched from Gnome to XMonad myself, but Jamie Brandon has continued development of lein-gnome in his own fork.

« older | 2012-05-16T16:07:43Z | newer »