Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'll have to disagree here. I prefer an interpreted language like bash, > python, > or php. I don't like perl because I think the syntax is error prone. The > ease > of viewing, understanding, testing, and debugging an interpreted package is > the > dominant issue.
It's a factor, but I don't know if I'd call it a dominant issue. Poring through someone else's bash scripts can sometimes be just as daunting as C or C++. > The speed is a non-issue as the compile times in LFS dwarf any alfs execution > times. In turn, I disagree with this statement (at least the part about speed being a non-issue). When I'm in the development process and am constantly adjusting things and re-parsing the book, 1 second compared to 20 seconds makes a difference. In any case, my biggest complaint with the way jhalfs currently parses the book has more to do with its reliance on libxslt and trying to understand the stylesheets that make up the logic behind it. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
