I've seen scathing accusations of other codebases as well. I've seen Vim's codebase regarded poorly, as is Vim's scripting language. I've seen articles belying the complexity of Netbeans' codebase. Elisp (on which much of emacs is written) is often referred to as "terrible" or "horrible", resulting in an ugly/brittle codebase.
My conclusion is that mature IDEs and editors are complex and challenging design decisions (made by talented people) must be made along the way. For random commenters to make these accusations is just foolishness. Foolish if they think they could have made markedly better decisions if put in the same position. Foolish if they think that they could have had the persistence to *continue *making them for the decades necessary to create such a complex piece of software. On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:31:58 AM UTC-4, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > *Horrible code*: A pretty wild accusation. Please file an enhancement or > bug request if a specific part of Leo's code gives you problems. Leo's > code has improved spectacularly many times in the past, but there is always > room for improvement. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
