Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")

[Pierce T.Wetter III]

> > > The messages begin to introduce furth, a new extension language that 
> > > I
> > > plan to add to tla (and use for other purposes as well). =20
>
> > Why?  What is the pressing feature that requires embedding an
> > ad-hoc extension language?
>
> Thank you for your concern and please retain that critical frame of
> mind as we go forward, but:
>
> An extension language is required for usability features, especially
> those that simplify both "upstream" and "downstream" configuration and
> process integration.  For example, suppose that we want commands like:
>
>         % tla fork <my-favorite-project>
>
> and
>
>         % tla submit <my-favorite-project>  <some-of-my-changes>
>
> Those both require project-specific rules to be followed.  `submit'
> especially just cries out for something turing complete.   Other
> examples are not hard to construct.

  So furth will be needed when people want to add custom rules to
how tla works, in the same way that Makefiles are really a rather
bizarre language.

  Ok, so why furth? Because you like scheme? Why not use one of the
existing languages that let you embed an interpreter (perl, python),
why a whole new language that only you can program in.

 Personally, if I wanted to write a script for submit to check that
a build worked, I'm not sure that I would say "You know, I should
write this in scheme".

 I'm very concerned about this decision for several reasons.

 1. There is currently only one person in the world that knows how to
program in furth.

 2. I doubt that furth will have ever have the feature set of say, perl
or python, given that it is pretty much gaurunteed to never have as
many people working on it.

 3. I'm not sure it makes sense to EVER force a decision on the user of
what language to use. Why can't tla call out to any shell, perl, 
python, ruby,
script or program? If it needs tight integration, integrate with 
Parrot, lets
not have yet-another-vm...

 I can't be any more blunt then this:

  If you insist on creating your own language+VM for use with arch, you 
will
condemn arch to obscurity. Anyone who ever looks at arch from now on 
will say
"oh, written in some weird language I don't want to learn. Next..."

  You may have all the technical reasons in the world, but its a bad UI
decision.

 Pierce