<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'> > > 64 bit integer support will have to wait.<BR> > As long as the binary does compile the current code base, it will be OK,<BR> > I think.<BR>
<BR>
It does.<BR><BR>
> I think PowerPC Linux would be great, if you find the time. I don't<BR>> know of many people who could build that.<BR><BR>
Ok.<BR>
Um..gotta wonder what people use here...Mandrake, OpenSuse, YellowDog, Fedora... actually given my opinion of PowerPC and Linux, I bet none. Maybe just AIX. :) (Haven't used it myself.)<BR>
<BR>> > .zip or .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 or self expanding .zip in an .exe?<BR>> <BR>> I'm fine with any of these. Since Windows does seem to use other<BR>> approaches and conventions in most aspects anyway, we should just<BR>> go with what is easiest for beginners. What would you suggest?<BR>> Self-extracting .exe?<BR><BR>
Ah. Good point, know the audience.<BR>
Well, I think a non self expanding .zip <EM>might </EM>be "best".<BR>
The self expanding .exes I have made are console apps.<BR>
The user must be comfortable with the command line (IDE integration anyone? :))<BR>
The .zip can be expanded with the builtin support or with unzip.<BR>
.zip has that small advantage of "built in" support in the gui.<BR>
<BR> > Making such things completely automatic on many different target platform <BR>
<BR>
Sounds like a job for Autoconf, eh?<BR>
Actually I have experimented with Autoconf-ish sorts of stuff on Windows.<BR>
If you know the local scripting language and even if that language is like 10% of what it should be, not difficult.<BR>
(That is, cmd kind of stinks, but it is good enough; and on Windows the right answer is probably VBScript or JScript. They are on pretty much every machine now and are very usable from the command line, not just the browser. Soon "PowerShell"..)<BR>
Thing is, I don't know Bourne shell scripting.<BR>
I guess these days you could use Perl. It's everywhere and I know it well enough.<BR>
Of course you still need to know how to answer the questions in an automated fashion.<BR>
<BR>
REALLY I have to say, I've been using Perl so much the past few years, I'm kind of torn on static compilation to native code anyway.<BR>
You know, this stuff could be in Modula-3 or Quake, but Perl suffices plenty...and then you start to realize that it suffices for a heck of a lot of stuff..<BR>
I did start some autoconfish-for-Windows stuff in Quake too. :)<BR>
<BR>
See..there's this metapoint, metaquestion that I've been obsessing over for years...some languages really do try to be the only language you need for any task -- Java, C, C++, C#, Modula-3 -- are good examples. And then when you find them too heavyweight and start using "scripts", you start to wonder, and when those "scripts" perf and scale just fine, you start to wonder.. Many "scripting" languages are obviously no good, but some seem perhaps good enough. An example of "bad" is Tcl with its ridiculous string-centricity, how braces might LOOK like a scoping mechanism a la C and C++, but they are really a hacky escaping mechanism... cmd is also too string-centric among other things (cmd is much better than people realize, but also seriously flawed). But Perl and probably Ruby and Python really seem to be on to something in terms of "general purpose" programming languages without a "build" step. Heck, I believe Red Hat/Fedora setup is written in Python.. and there's a book out there on linkers and loaders and .obj/.exe formats where the guy developers a linker in Perl. I think that says something..something <EM>positive</EM>.<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><br /><hr />Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_122007' target='_new'>Share now!</a></body>
</html>