Having fewer versions of software is not neccessarily a plus.

It is easily considered a negative.


enh <e...@google.com> wrote:

> it's perhaps worth mentioning in the "pros" column that toybox (a
> 0BSD-licensed busybox which provides most of /bin on Android, which i
> maintain) and busybox both use Gavin's bc/dc implementations[1]. so
> although the GNU versions are their own thing and i assume likely to stay
> that way, "all Android devices (plus any other toybox users) and everything
> that uses busybox" is a fairly significant chunk of the market if you're
> thinking about compatibility/interoperability issues.
> 
> ____
> 1. Android doesn't actually use the toybox copy of bc, it uses Gavin's
> upstream version directly. the only issue we've had with bc/dc on Android
> was from a bug that was introduced in toybox that was never in upstream. if
> you're thinking "how much use do bc/dc even get on Android devices
> anyway?", that's a fair point, but note that we also use host prebuilts of
> Gavin's bc/dc to _build_ Android (including all the third-party open source
> packages and the kernel, not just code we wrote). that was the _real_
> reason for me to get into the business of shipping bc/dc!
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:08 AM Gavin Howard <gavin.d.how...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Otto,
> >
> > > I think it is interesting. As for the incompatibilites, my memory says
> > > I followed the original dc and bc when deciding on those (GNU chose to
> > > differs in these cases). Bit it has been 18 years since I wrote the
> > > current versions, so I might misrememeber.
> >
> > I think that makes sense to me. Unfortunately, when I was building my
> > dc, I couldn't find any mention in the OpenBSD man pages, which I used
> > to ensure as much compatibility as I could, that arrays and registers
> > were not separate. Well, there was one (the `;` command mentions
> > registers, but the `:` command does not, so I thought that was a typo).
> >
> > Regarding the 0 having length 0 or 1, that was a decision I agonized
> > over. My dad, who is a mathematician, said that it could go either way.
> > Unfortunately for me, if this is a showstopper incompatibility (and it
> > might be based on how the test suite uses `length()` and `Z`), I do
> > think I would keep it as it is and accept that OpenBSD will not want my
> > bc(1) and dc(1).
> >
> > > As for moving to your version, I have no opinion yet. I have some
> > > attachment to the current code, but not so strong that I am opposing
> > > replacement upfront. OTOH the current implementaion is almost
> > > maintainance free for many years already. So I dunno.
> >
> > You have a right to have attachment to it; I have attachment to mine!
> >
> > In fact, I was pleasantly surprised at how clean and readable your code
> > was. I usually struggle to read code written by others, but I could
> > easily read yours.
> >
> > On that note, since last night, I thought of more disadvantages of
> > moving to my bc and dc, which I feel I must mention.
> >
> > More disadvantages:
> >
> > * The current dc(1) and bc(1) are from a known member of the OpenBSD
> >   community with many contributions. I am an unknown quantity.
> > * The current dc(1) and bc(1) do not have ugly portability code that
> >   OpenBSD probably doesn't care about.
> > * The current dc(1) and bc(1) do not have ugly code to support build
> >   options that OpenBSD does not care about.
> > * The binary size of the OpenBSD dc(1) and bc(1) combined are 78% the
> >   size of mine combined (on amd64). The size of OpenBSD combined is
> >   145440, and the size of mine combined are 185706.
> > * The current dc(1) and bc(1) have much less source code and have been
> >   nearly maintenance-free for many years. Mine were started in 2018 and
> >   do not have as long of a track record for being low maintenance.
> >
> > > I'll take a look at your code soon and maybe other devs have opinions.
> >
> > Thank you very much!
> >
> > Gavin Howard
> >
> >

Reply via email to