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 ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],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
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
