Thanks to EXWM (not mentioned here), emacs has been my literal X window manager for several years. I installed it as a lark, thinking there's no way this will work properly, and just never stopped using it. It's brilliant.
EXWM is great, having the same flow to manage X applications as for emacs buffers is a huge benefit. My only concern is if X11 will be maintained sufficiently into the future to keep using it, currently there is no Wayland support in EXWM.
I don't mean adding threading to existing functionality, and I mostly wouldn't want that. I very strongly prefer emacs' behaviour of queueing up my input events and processing them deterministically regardless of how long it takes to get to them over eg. the JetBrains behaviour where something can happen asynchronously with my input events that can change their meaning depending on when it happens.
What I mean is having threading capabilities available for things that want to (and should) use them. AIUI some support for that was added in emacs 26, so it might already be good enough.
The relevance is that EXWM is single threaded, so the window management blocks when emacs does. I don't find that much of a problem with EXWM but I doubt it would fly for a Wayland compositor, though perhaps the separate server used in that emacsconf talk sidesteps the problem.
I once read a comment here or reddit explaining that the X11 developers moved to Wayland because the X11 code has turned into an unmaintainable mess that can't be worked with anymore. So the reasons are not drama, but just plain old tech debt.
This pre-packaged talking point is often repeated without evidence. The vast majority of X.org developers, including all of the original ones, simply moved to other venues at one point or another. Only a few, like Daniel Stone, have made contributions to both. And it shows in how many lessons had to be re-learned.
What is your evidence? A quick search on google (and the git commits) would show you that many wayland developers are significant former xorg developers.
1. Kristian Høgsberg the founder of wayland, did all the DRI2 work on xorg before becomming frustrated
2. Peter Hutterer was a main xorg developer and has been behind the wayland input system
3. Adam Jackson, long time xorg maintainer essentially called for moving on to wayland https://ajaxnwnk.blogspot.com/2020/10/on-abandoning-x-server... (I found that he was involved in wayland discussions, but not sure if he contributed code)
4. you already mentioned Daniel Stone
The only main xorg developer not involved in wayland arguably could be Keith Packard, although he made a lot of the changes for xwayland so I'm not sure if it is correct to say he did not have wayland involvement.
So who are the "vast majority of X.org developers"? I think people always read about the couple of names above and then think, "well there must have been hundreds of others", because they thought xorg was like the linux kernel. AFAIK xorg always only had low 10s of active developers.
This doesn’t even include the XFree86 CVS commit history and older, which accounts for most of the code in X.org. Some of those people may actually be dead now.
>AFAIK xorg always only had low 10s of active developers.
There are 38 people with 100+ commits, which obviously counts as a major contributor.
The drama was mostly over whether or not Wayland should have been the replacement. AFAIU, everyone agreed X11 development was effectively unsustainable or at least at a dead end.
So is X11, though the reference implementation of X11 is also widely agreed to have some serious problems going forward on top of problems with the protocol itself.
You can also use EXWM in Xephyr, so you can have an emacs window with its own controlled windows instead of replacing the whole DE/window-manager. I suppose this doesn't work with multiple frames though.
I have been experimenting with xdotool windowmap/windowunmap and override_redirect (and maybe LD_PRELOAD?) to try get something like EXWM to work without creating another X server, by capturing windows. I'm doing this in vim though.
