On 2009-11-11 17:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Tarek Ziadé<ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
And let's drop the backward compat issues in these discussions, so we
don't burn out
in details.
That's the part I don't understand. If backward compatibility is not a
concern, why keeping distutils ? If you change the command and
Distribution class design, what remains of the original code ? You
are changing the API and the implementation (which are quite tangled
with each other in distutils case), almost none of the original code
would remain.
It really feels to me like you are getting the pain of backward
compatibility without the gains. What am I missing ?
I think Tarek wants to avoid the Second System Effect and related problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
While that is usually a good habit to cultivate and a good default position,
it's not an unyielding law or anything. You have think deeply about whether the
code is the way it is because it contains useful knowledge or if it is just
constrained by ossified decisions from the past. I tend to think that the useful
knowledge can be extracted from distutils and applied well in a rewrite. The
most important useful knowledge is the extension building flags, and I think you
have done a good job of transplanting that information into the entirely
different build system of SCons.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
