On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:45 AM, René Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> David,
>
> I appreciate the heads up, but I am wondering if this change does not come
> too soon. I know it is sometimes good to make a clean break, and a
> programming language is not a museum of older tools and architectures.
> Still, I am wondering if the subgoals - wanting to use modern building
> tools and modern compiler features, wanting an automated build procedure,
> are not counterproductive to the goal of wanting to reach the widest
> possible user segment - because it is the best possible programming
> language.
>
> My suggestion would be to put off the new features until the majority of
> platforms support them, or work actively to support alternative
> buiidling/compiling procedures. Cmake seems simple: don't use the modern
> features when older features do the job, or generate and tweak a makefile
> to perform this role.
>
> Frankly, if you are asking us to actually stop moving the language forward
because of difficulties with older versions of the OS, then I will probably
end my involvement with ooRexx entirely. In my we need to make more of a
push to modernize the implementation and and add new features. If that's
going to stop, then I see no need to even be involved any more.
Rick
> I have bigger worries over compiler/linkage editor bugs. Features that
> trigger linkage editor bugs in widely used tools are clearly too new. I
> would postpone using those until most linkage editors are fixed. I think
> fragmenting the user base would be detrimental to language uptake. Other
> interpreters seem not to have this problem. If this is hard to fix, I would
> suggest to postpone the release until more infrastructure supports it. In
> my opinion, that would hurt ooRexx less than releasing for a smaller OS
> base.
>
> The feature causing the problem is Namespaces, which have been in the C++
language for 15 years. Hardly qualifies as a feature that is "too new" to
use.
> best regards,
>
> René Jansen.
>
> On 10 okt. 2014, at 18:15, David Ashley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All -
> >
> > Please read all of this note as this could impact you.
> >
> > For the last few days I have been trying to get the 5.0.0 version of
> > ooRexx to build on my older VMs on the Build Machine. I keep running
> > into one of the following problems.
> >
> > 1. We use a lot of the newer features in CMake and these older operating
> > systems only have an older version of CMake available.
> >
> > 2. The GCC compiler/linker will not link the compiler output due to a
> > bug in the linker.
> >
> > Before I talk about these problem I want explain our philosophy on
> > building ooRexx. We supply many install packages for ooRexx for two
> > reasons: to verify that ooRexx will build on an OS release and to ensure
> > that ooRexx will install on an OS. We therefore try to impose as few
> > problems on the developer who wants to build ooRexx on their own.
> >
> > Starting with version 5.0.0 we have added a new wrinkle into building
> > ooRexx with the CMake product. While CMake is not usually installed by
> > default it is easily added using the OS specific installer or for
> > Windows, downloading it off the web.
> >
> > So now lets get back to our two problems.
> >
> > Problem 1 is not easy to solve for a developer. It usually means that
> > they will need to download the latest CMake source and build it for
> > themselves, which is not an easy task. That also means that I will have
> > to perform that task for each of our older operating systems (VMs).
> > There are over 25 of these so this task will take a LOT of time.
> >
> > Problem 2 is even worse. There is really no good solution for this. The
> > problem is caused by our choice to use newer C++ features to increase
> > the performance and ease of developing the interpreter. The only
> > solution would be to try and integrate a newer version of GCC into an OS
> > that may not be able to support it (no fun at all).
> >
> > For these reasons we will not be supporting ooRexx 5.0.0 on any of the
> > OSs that have problems 1 or 2. I know this is disappointing but please
> > try to be reassured that as time progresses this will become less of a
> > problem. Those using the older OSs will still be able to fall back on
> > ooRexx 4.2.0 (which is a really good version of ooRexx).
> >
> > Currently we are going to only support the OS versions that are showing
> > up on the nightly builds (plus some others that may be added later).
> >
> > If you have questions about this topic please feel free to post a reply
> > to this post.
> >
> > David Ashley
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> > Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> > Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> > Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oorexx-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
