Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Monday 23 April 2001  4:29 pm, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>>>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Alexandre> That's why we should have this portability library coded in
> Alexandre> m4sh.  Instead of repeatedly fixing the same problems over
> Alexandre> and over, we should have them coded right once, and then
> Alexandre> used all over.  This will not only document the portability
> Alexandre> problems and solutions, but also make it easier for us to
> Alexandre> fix problems whenever they're found, reduce the learning
> Alexandre> curve of candidate new maintainers, and introduce new
> Alexandre> foundations for portable scripting.
>
> Akim> Your claim does not apply IMHO.
>
> Gary> I must say that it rings very true for me...
>
> I indeed overstated here, but actually that sentence was not meant to
> be read alone.  I really meant that I agree it applies but not _here_,
> because it has become more a burden than a good thing.  For simple
> drivers, I agree it is a fine exercise to try to do it in sh, but
> seriously it is responsible for too many problems.
>
> [[snip]]
>
> The assumption for autoconf.sh is, and will remain, sane environment.
> The assumption for configure is, and will remain, hell.

In some respects I still disagree with you here.  But, then I am a purist, 
and get excited by silly things like recursive bootstraps and the like... 
I'll concede that a little pragmatism wouldn't do me any harm.

The bottom line is that you are doing all the hard work, and the casting vote 
lies with you =)O|

> >> Because we need more, there is no reason to remain bound to sh.
>
> Gary> Well, I still have my Sic project on the table.  I have a
> Gary> prototype for the runtime which will drastically improve the
> Gary> speed of shell scripts (at least an order of magnitude by my
> Gary> rough measurements).
>
> That's a fine project!  But as a target language (= configure).  I
> fail to understand why I should remain bound to sh for autoconf.

Because Sic's 1st job will be to eat shell code.  The advantage is that you 
can gradually take advantage of the more advanced features of Sic (or any 
other shell that you particularly enjoy) by slowly changing the source code.  
Although you will gain many short term gains by moving to Perl, you must 
first rewrite all of the source in one fell swoop -- and then in a few years 
all over again if Perl turns out to have been the wrong choice.

> Gary> Although Perl offers the path of least resistance, I am not at
> Gary> all convinced that it will prove to be the correct choice in the
> Gary> fullness of time.
>
> That's another debate.
>
> I *agree*.
>
> I'd rather use Python, Guile, or indeed, Caml.  But that's pushing the
> requirement over maintainers a bit too high for 2001.  IMHO.
>
> And in the fullness of time, none of these too btw :)
> (But Autoconf will still exist! ;)

Good point.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ___              _   ___   __              _         mailto: address@hidden
 / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _  _ __ _| |_  __ _ ___       address@hidden
| (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \
 \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/
home page:  /___/                      /___/                  gpg public key:
http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk           http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc