David Megginson wrote: > > What does everyone else think? Should this be bundled unpacked in the > SimGear source tree and built automatically (as with expat, our XML > parser), bundled as an archive so that users can build it if they > don't already have it installed (as with metakit and zlib), or left as > an external, optional extra? I'd like to embed an interpreter in > FlightGear, and ECMAScript is an excellent candidate language, but it > would be nice if the interpreter were a lot smaller.
If it would be a lot smaller (e.g. 20-50 kb zipped) I'm for including it. But at that size I'm against it. IMHO we should handle it like we do handle the JPEG writer: if it's aviable on the system compile the hooks into the code and if it isn't don't. So we don't have a new dependancy but offer the increased feature for those that care (or are lucky enough to have it pre installed on their system) > Is anyone going to argue for embedding a small Scheme interpreter > instead? No! If we add a scripting language it should be one that many people can use. So there are IMHO 4 choices: - JavaScript - Perl - VisualBasic (yuck!) - Python CU, Christian PS: Polls (asking an OpenSource community) showd that the most annoying thing about software are the dependancies. The "greatness" of an software has to rise exponentially to it dependancies (roughly) -- The idea is to die young as late as possible. -- Ashley Montague _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
