FW: Hmmm.... future of cons?

[Nadim Khemir]

-----Original Message-----
From: Nadim Khemir 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:23 PM
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: RE: Hmmm.... future of cons?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Alcorn [mailto:address@hidden
[snip]

> The core Cons team took up the
> re-write effort that Cons needed but decided to do it in Python.  
Who is the core team? Speak up so we know who we are talking to.

> So, here's my thoughts.  Cons is at a dead end.  
Is that share by the rest of the core team?

> I think any work to re-write
> Cons is a duplication of effort.  What would we gain?  So Python is a
> boring language.  I'm not disagreeing with you.  I have had very little
> motivation to learn Python.  The team made the decision to use
> Python.  So, Python it is.  Part of being a good team player is
> swallowing things like this and moving on.

Try swallowing a python, you might get swallowed by it. What you write make
sense but I am not part of the Scons team. I'd rather add a perl (lua
whatever) front end to Scons, that would fix my problem at least. I can get
myself to do that if possible. I need to know more about SCons. This takes
me to the next question. How stable, complete is SCons as of today?

Some times ago we had a similar discussion (in another context) where it
seemed that sensitivity to perl-python, Scons not wanting to walk on cons
toes, stopped the discussion. If I am to use SCons I'd like Scons
developer(s) to speak out and ,please, convince me (I guess many would like
that). I don't see why we couldn't discuss Scons (or moving to Scons)
openly.

> That's just my take.  If you really want to re-write Cons, knock
> yourself out.  I'm not signing up for that.  What I did volunteer for
> is helping Cons get to a good resting place.

Yes you did ;-)

 As of re-writing Cons, I'd love to do that but it is wiser to use Scons if
I can fix a perl front end (doesn't sound impossible at all).

Who is interested in re-writing Cons in perl?

Nadim..