On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 16:27 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Any opinions on antlr/jay and/or asm/gnu.bytecode? We should > probably also implement a fallback mode (not build all tools) if either > dependency isn't available.
Antlr seems to be well maintained, and the last published version worked well for me, while I recall that on IRC you said something about needing a very specific version of jay from somewhere. Debian seems to only have a package for mono-jay, which may, or may not be the jay we want. So I'd feel more comfortable with antlr. As for bytecode libraries, I'd prefer ASM, again since it seems to be already packaged by Debian, while oddly enough neither Kawa not gnu bytecode seem to be, so I'd go with the more ubiquitous option. My opinion in both cases is not based on technical merit, just on what seems to be more used out there, and what is easier for me to work with. We've got a snapshot of both asm & gnu bytecode in Kaffe, but I'd prefer to have a single bytecode toolkit as a dependency. cheers, dalibor topic
