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 ())_. [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
