Re: TODO

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hey Bob!

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 
>> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>
>>> There may be some other existing small shell/scripting implementation
>>> which please Unix programmers but are small enough to embed in other
>>> applications.
>>
>>
>> I rather like embryo, the bytecode interpreter is <2500LOC in C.
>>
>> http://www.enlightenment.org/pages/embryo.html (down atm, use google
>> cache)
> 
> 
> The main issue I see with using embryo (or small, or Java) or any other
> byte-code/VM based machine is that it seems to make it much more
> difficult for the end-user to fix problems on their end.  With the
> existing libtool they can hunt and peck through the scripts and
> implement local fixes, which may eventually become useful patches sent
> back to libtool. With a scheme which distributes "compiled" bytecode
> files, there is no possiblity of the end-user fixing the problem unless
> he installs the full libtool distribution package to he can modify the
> bytecode.

That would be no less true of a compiled ltmain.c.

It is already a little bit true of branch-2-0, since we build libtool (the
script) from a bunch of m4sh code, and the output of a whole bunch of
autoconf testing.  Admittedly, you can still go in and tweak the code or
the values.

All that aside, we can have end-user tweakability, developer maintainability,
runtime execution speed.  Pick any two :-)

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