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

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 23:35:31 +0100, Daniel James wrote:
> Colin Walters wrote:
> >The only other actual example of where you think Furth would be useful
> >in tla that I've gleaned from this thread is "project-specific" rules.
> >My answer to that is: "exec".  You have yet to rebut that.
> 
> For me, the answer is portability. I would want an archive to be usable 
> on any platform, using only tla (or whatever client). This means an 
> embedded language. Eventually there will be a windows client which 
> doesn't require cygwin.
> 
> If you decide that using your archive requires perl/python/sh, then I 
> hope you'll be able to just run it from the embedded language. You might 
> even be able to write a script which causes all hooks, or whatever, to 
> search for the scripts. In which case, you're only going to require 1 
> standard script in the embedded language. So you'll only need to learn 
> to write the config files, which should be no harder than the existing ones.
> 
> Personally, I would consider Lua ideal. But I don't have much experience 
> with Scheme, so I'm keeping an open mind.

As I understand Tom, he does not want it so that users need to program
anything. They should be able to, should not have to.

So furth should not be language for config files. The config files would
be converted to furth internaly and interpreted in a standard way by
furth vm. Advantage being clean internal interface allowing easy
polishing of the external ones.

That requires a language, that is easy to compile to. And lua does not
seem to be good for that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature