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

[Pierce T.Wetter III]

On Jun 30, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Tom Lord wrote:

> > From: "Pierce T.Wetter III" <address@hidden>
>
> > > Are they?  The language of `make(1)' has some serious, big-ass
> > > glitches.  That's because it was an ad hoc design, aimed at solving
> > > one particular need for a language, but absent any larger perspective
> > > on languages in general.  But aside from those glitches, it's very,
> > > very good.   It's a tiny, domain-specific language, enabling
> > > economical expression of the most common patterns.....
>
> >   Yeah, you're just being pedantic here.
>
> No, but, hey, thanks for the insult.

 I could be pedantic about whether saying you were being pedantic is 
the same
thing as calling you a pedantic, but that would be pedantic...


> > My point is that furth will
> > be used for "rule files", not so much for feature development. Which 
> > you
> > confirmed.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote: "You seem to think I'm going to stop everything and immediately
completely rewrite arch in some strange language that I made
up on the spot.   That's not the plan.   Reacting against that
non-plan is really off topic."

 How did I put words in your mouth? I paraphrase and condensed what you
said, but I don't think I lost any significant meaning.

 Anyways, I see why you might want a language in the rule/config files 
for arch, but
I don't see the need for furth.

 When CMU was working on the Andrew email program it had a really 
minimal configuration mechanism that was almost freeform because it 
wasn't done yet so it was more or less "syntax free".

 Then they added a proper parser, which would reject badly formed files.

 Everyone complained, because the "syntax free" format was actually 
easier to use.

 Anyways, what about TCL? I seem to remember the interpreter being 
pretty minimal. There are a couple of JavaScript interpreters out there 
as well.


Pierce