Re: oaklisp: contains 500kB binary in source
Marco Franzen writes:
> ... Bootstrapping [using an Oaklisp interpreter written in Scheme]
> might fail because an Oaklisp-specific feature of the target system
> is subtly implemented by the same feature in the host system ...
Right, then you would have to do this thing called "debugging", in
order to identify and repair any innocent incompatibilities in your
> Stepping back a bit, maybe the question is, which side has the
> burden of proof?
You are worried that there might be a self-reproducing monster hiding
inside an apparently innocuous and seemingly easily regenerated file.
Therefore the burden of proof is on you. After all, it is impossible
to prove a negative.
I have suggested various technical measures you might wish to take to
help flush any such scary invisible monsters out of hiding. Go for it!
Barak A. Pearlmutter <email@example.com>
Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland