Tony Peden writes: > > This claims a <64K object size in Linux: > > > > http://tinyscheme.sourceforge.net/home.html
In fact, it turns out to be <64K stripped *executable* size for the standalone interpreter; the object/library is even smaller. > Please, don't. I hear your pain. > Incorporating this will, I think, almost instantly turn off new > developers (and at least one current one). It's not possible to > pick a language that will make everyone happy, but we should at > least pick one that doesn't present the syntactic hurdles that the > likes of Lisp and Scheme do. I agree that Scheme will turn a lot of people off, but I'm annoyed that we cannot find a core ECMAScript implementation the same size (even then, the core source code for this is over 200K). There are *lots* of scheme implementations: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Lisp/Scheme/Implementations/ There are very few ECMAScript/JavaScript implementations, and at least two of those require a Java Runtime Environment: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/JavaScript/Runtime_Environments/ If someone can supply a core ECMAScript implementation that is small and easy to embed, then we should jump on it; otherwise, the evil of holding back FlightGear development indefinitely might outweigh even the evil of using Scheme. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
