Re: TODO

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:25:11PM CET:
>>Gah, perl?  Blech.  XML?  Bah!  Choke...
>>
>><rant>
> 
> *snip*
> 
>>There... I've got it off my chest, and feel much better now :-)
> 
> 
> /me agrees on everything you said except about perl.

Just curious...  Do you mean that you disagree with my perl rant?

>>Libtool already depends on C, so we don't need to resort to Perl.  We can
>>always prototype something in Perl, and then before we forget what all
>>those strings of puntuation do, we should convert it to Shell and/or C.

Or that you think prototyping in Perl is dumb?

> Why prototype in perl what you can write in shell (or other) right away?

I think there is value in prototyping in HLL to work out algorithmic
issues before writing the real implementation in a LLL for speed.  Arguably,
ltmain.sh is our HLL prototype.  Except that it seems to be a good idea
to separate platform details from rules at this point, so we probably need
another prototype now :-l

> My vote: against everything but shell and C for ltmain.  For the rules,
> make might prove fine (except that the portable set is quite limited).
> I'd do C++ (with STL), but that's out of the question portably-wise.

<rant>
Gah, C++?  Bleh!
</rant>

Kidding!

Sure, introducing another dependency is only a good idea if there are
definite tangible benefits.  I've enumerated a few, but probably not
enough to make it an obvious choice.  Of course, the person who implements
it gets the casting vote ;-)

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature