[M3devel] PPC_DARWIN problems, at least config/5.2.6, maybe all moot

[Jay]

Other platforms should be supportable via cm3 directly eh?

I'm just not sure of the value of extension/scripting languages in general, vs. having fewer languages.
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.

I don't care that much.

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.

Regarding the problems with cm3.cfg.. I don't know.

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.
So what I wonder then, is if just a bit more shouldn't be done here.
Have platforms converged such that less needs to be configurable?
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.....)

So, back to cm3.cfg. It IS fairly small.
Is it down to about what varies per platform?
I haven't really surveyed them all..

 - Jay

> To: jayk123 at hotmail.com
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] PPC_DARWIN problems, at least config/5.2.6, maybe all moot 
> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:47:03 -0800
> From: mika at async.caltech.edu
> 
> Jay writes:
> >
> ...
> >
> >You know, I dare say, that platforms have been reduced and converged enough=
> > such that..you can get rid of
> >Quake and move it into cm3. Um.. do any of the Unix platforms support other=
> > than gcc? Other than GNU ld?
> 
> I take it you don't mean "get rid of Quake" but "get rid of cm3.cfg"?
> I would certainly agree that cm3.cfg is problematic.  I have more
> than once had apparently unresolvable issues with CM3 that Tony
> fixed by sending me a new cm3.cfg, which came, seemingly, out of a
> hat...
> 
> However I also would think it's a bad idea to reduce configurability.
> As Olaf said, you'll miss it the moment it's gone.  (Someone will.)
> Non-GNU Solaris and Digital Unix aren't that hard to support with
> the current code if someone wanted to, for instance.  Why make such a 
> hypothetical someone's work harder?  (Just an example, I'm sure there
> are other things.)
> 
>      Mika

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20071225/021d9f72/attachment-0002.html>