I find it funny that there is so much differing opinions on this topic. :-D which makes it lively a topic/list to follow and discuss :-)
python is built over a library standard and it is all the better for it. It allows a large group of developpers to contribute to the package completely transparently. I'M not saying I like python itself, only that I recognize how its modules ideology has helped it. There are things missing in its library methods which do make it a little dangerous to use to share code, but if it gets placed into the core distribution, it becomes safe cause its api has to get "locked". I DO think that python has TOO many libraries and that a greater effort at reducing code duplication and mismatch should have been done for the core distribution. One obvious and basic problem is the fact that there are string functions AND string methods, but NOT ALL methods have function equivalents, which is a bad design IMHO. I'm always wondering if such and such an operation is a method or a function.... :-( I'm trying to learn from other's mistake (but can't say I'm an all knowing guru ;-). Like I said, I'll be releasing more information with more specific details of what I want to provide as a linkable library system. Judgment by trial. ;-) The loader's essential functionality is working on my system. I need to work on a real setup/install application which actually can look up your setup. this would handler both core and vid setups (text or vid install :-) -MAx --- "You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but in the end, being part of the problem is much more fun." > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregg Irwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:45 AM > To: Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch > Subject: [REBOL] Re: DLL Hell = Rebol library script version > > > > Hi Max et al, > > MOA> why is run-time linking so bad if the engine is standardized > MOA> and the resources are centralized and "official" in some way? > > Run-time linking isn't bad, but being standardized in "some way" isn't > much help when it comes to reliability. > > My opinion, FWIW, having lived through many years of VB development > (I believe you can credit Dan Appleman with the phrase "DLL Hell". > born, perhaps, from the SS3D.VBX fiasco and others that followed): > > You can't solve this easily. Either you go all the way and create a > heavy solution or you go in knowing that things are going to break for > no good reason; with no clear source; and no easy way to find the > culprit. > > There are probably a zillion ways to do checks, verifications, even > rollbacks with REBOL, but what's the cost versus benefit? > > It's a different world now, so you have to figure out for *your* needs > what risk and consequences are acceptable. Will your users be OK with > "Sorry, that screen is not available", crashes, or results that might > look OK, but aren't correct? It's up to you. > > -- Gregg > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
