<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Ok, that shuts me up well. I will continue to party in the *.py files and mostly avoid the *.sh files.<BR>
And then, still, *.cmd vs. *.py? I suspect the answer is "The Windows folks, Jay being the most vocal/active at the moment, can do what they want" (which is partly why I am here -- to be in the "partially independent minority". :) )<BR>
I stopped reading usenet years ago but from time to time wonder if it might be "useful".<BR>
<BR>
I have at least two problems with using Modula-3 here but I might be somewhat or wrong or very wrong.<BR>
<BR>
1) I have been unable to aquire a taste for it.<BR>
<BR>
2) What about bootstrapping?<BR>
<BR>
This is a more general and relevant question that I have<BR>
.<BR>
>>>> From what version are you expected to be able to boot what version?<BR>
<BR>
Is it ok for merely version n to only be bootrappable, or upgradable, from version n (for upgrade) or n - 1 (bootstrap)?<BR>
Or downgrade from anything > n?<BR>
"Version n" isn't even well defined..or is that because I don't know about pkgtags?<BR>
<BR>
Any increased dependency on Quake worries me here, until I understand this.<BR>
<BR>
Yet, unless you can be clever and a) make all new things optional b) write all new things in both M3 and Quake, or M3 and SH, or M3 and whatever, forward progress is entirely blocked in Quake, and that probably can't be the right answer. Arguably either way -- required changes must be possible at any point in the stack at any time. Nothing is unchangable. Don't go crazy. Don't change things for no reason. But if a change is needed, it can be done. OR, alternatively, some things really cannot be changed, as they would require rewriting all or at least a whole heck of a lot of code. The world is round, and that cannot change, until such time as the world is gone, and all of us with it, for example. Modula-3 files have the extensions .m3 and .i3. I could be wrong, but there will never ever be a reason to change that, for example.<BR>
<BR>
I can bootstrap on Windows from 5.1.3.<BR>
I have 4.1 and 3.6 but haven't tried yet.<BR>
I believe 3.6 won't work since I /think/ cm3 uses WIDECHAR or such.<BR>
3.6 definitely still "works" on its own, nice.<BR>
I am not sure there is any point to those exercises.<BR>
Having them working independently may be useful for comparison and history, but that is different than booting.<BR>
<BR>
- Jay<BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:42:26 +0100<BR>> From: wagner@elegosoft.com<BR>> To: jayk123@hotmail.com<BR>> CC: rcoleburn@scires.com; m3devel@elegosoft.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] my status on win32<BR>> <BR>> Quoting Jay <jayk123@hotmail.com>:<BR>> <BR>> > I'll see about adding usage statements.<BR>> > Basically all the do* scripts accept a "command" and a list of packages.<BR>> > The commands are:<BR>> > realclean<BR>> > clean -- pretty useless imho<BR>> > buildlocal -- the default<BR>> > ship<BR>> > buildship -- build and shpi<BR>> > buildglobal<BR>> <BR>> Actually, the more useful commands are<BR>> <BR>> build -- build with overrides to ROOT<BR>> buildship (same as buildglobal) -- build with global package pool<BR>> realclean -- completely delete derived target files<BR>> <BR>> > do-pkg requires a list.<BR>> <BR>> If you're doing you're own project, this may be what is most useful<BR>> -- if you use the scripts at all.<BR>> <BR>> > What do folks think of deleting all of scripts\win and having only <BR>> > scripts\python?<BR>> > I guess you have to try them out first, at least.Scripts\python <BR>> > achieves parity pretty much, except for the more logging to files, <BR>> > less logging to the console, that win\make-dist has.<BR>> ><BR>> > Furthermore, out on a limb, what do folks think of deleting most of <BR>> > scripts\*.sh and having just Python?<BR>> <BR>> I'd object to this. Shell is POSIX standard, and most of the<BR>> infrastructure is built on it; Python is nice to have, but should<BR>> not be a prerequisite to CM3.<BR>> <BR>> > I doubt this will fly and I will try resist mentioning it often. :)<BR>> > In the interest of consensus here, though I doubt it will help, I'd <BR>> > be open to rewriting python in Perl, or possiby even Tcl.<BR>> <BR>> Why?<BR>> <BR>> > I am also willing/interested in discussing the merits of these <BR>> > languages, or an as yet undeveloped one "ideal language" (Modula-3 I <BR>> > don't think is it, sorry), but probably most people will find it a <BR>> > waste of time. Where is the geek-out-really-badly mailing list? :)<BR>> <BR>> I don't see the point in rewriting the scripts in yet other languages.<BR>> The purpose of the scripts is to support the installation, administration<BR>> and maintenance of the CM3 distribution. They were not intended as<BR>> a general purpose build or automation environment, though they can<BR>> be used for this purpose to a certain extent. But the main point is<BR>> that they are useful for the people maintaining the distribution.<BR>> <BR>> We could think about rewriting everything in M3 to further reduce<BR>> the system dependencies, but this would not be as flexible as a<BR>> general scripting language. Quake would need to be substantially<BR>> extended, and Python is nice, but a huge software distribution in<BR>> itself, that should be independent of CM3.<BR>> <BR>> POSIX shell is the one common interpreter I have found to be available<BR>> on almost all systems. (Even when we were programming point-of-sale<BR>> solutions on DOS in the early 90s we had ksh and other POSIX tools there<BR>> to emulate the Sun development environment we used on the servers.)<BR>> OK, on Windows you have to install it (e.g. in form of Cygwin) like<BR>> Python, but it's still the best choice wrt. availability and portability<BR>> I've found.<BR>> <BR>> For general discussions of the advantages and disadvantage of<BR>> programming languages, some of the comp.lang.* newsgroups may<BR>> be the better choice, though I haven't read them for years now<BR>> and don't know if they're still alive.<BR>> <BR>> As for the ideal language -- I don't think that there is any language<BR>> that could claim this. The advantages and disadvantages depend heavily<BR>> on the usage context, environment, and skills and understanding of the<BR>> programmers.<BR>> <BR>> (M3 is pretty good though :-)<BR>> <BR>> Olaf<BR>> -- <BR>> Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH<BR>> Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany<BR>> phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96 mobile: +49 177 2345 869 fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95<BR>> http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin<BR>> Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194<BR>> <BR><BR><br /><hr />Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. <a href='http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan' target='_new'>Play now!</a></body>
</html>