<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Other platforms should be supportable via cm3 directly eh?<br><br>I'm just not sure of the value of extension/scripting languages in general, vs. having fewer languages.<br>I very much like not having to compile/link such languages, the tendency toward having garbage collection and builtin collection classes, but I'm not sure which characteristics necessarily go together -- I strongly suspect you can have it all in one language -- static checking, fast compilation to native code, "built in" collection classes or a good library, etc.<br><br>I don't care that much.<br><br>You know, everything is configurable, it is a matter of how. What is in the code, what is in data, what is in non compiled code? (code is data and all that..) There does seem to be a line here but it is scientifically (lazily?) hard for me to discern.<br><br>Regarding the problems with cm3.cfg.. I don't know.<br><br>Just to backup a sec, I believe one of the "big" pieces of work that Critical Mass did was converting large swaths of Quake code into Modula-3, that code which, I assume, tended to be the same across all machines. Maybe it was just "utilities", maybe it was about perf.<br>So what I wonder then, is if just a bit more shouldn't be done here.<br>Have platforms converged such that less needs to be configurable?<br>Or, then again, the cm3.cfg IS already fairly small. Maybe it is right about where it needs to be. Bigger fish to fry probably -- like, I noticed m3cg and as are run for every single file, maybe there is a gain to batching? (and win32 int64.....)<br><br>So, back to cm3.cfg. It IS fairly small.<br>Is it down to about what varies per platform?<br>I haven't really surveyed them all..<br><br> - Jay<br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">> To: jayk123@hotmail.com<br>> CC: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] PPC_DARWIN problems, at least config/5.2.6, maybe all moot <br>> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:47:03 -0800<br>> From: mika@async.caltech.edu<br>> <br>> Jay writes:<br>> ><br>> ...<br>> ><br>> >You know, I dare say, that platforms have been reduced and converged enough=<br>> > such that..you can get rid of<br>> >Quake and move it into cm3. Um.. do any of the Unix platforms support other=<br>> > than gcc? Other than GNU ld?<br>> <br>> I take it you don't mean "get rid of Quake" but "get rid of cm3.cfg"?<br>> I would certainly agree that cm3.cfg is problematic. I have more<br>> than once had apparently unresolvable issues with CM3 that Tony<br>> fixed by sending me a new cm3.cfg, which came, seemingly, out of a<br>> hat...<br>> <br>> However I also would think it's a bad idea to reduce configurability.<br>> As Olaf said, you'll miss it the moment it's gone. (Someone will.)<br>> Non-GNU Solaris and Digital Unix aren't that hard to support with<br>> the current code if someone wanted to, for instance. Why make such a <br>> hypothetical someone's work harder? (Just an example, I'm sure there<br>> are other things.)<br>> <br>> Mika<br><br /><hr />Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! <a href='http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec' target='_new'>Check it out!</a></body>
</html>