Re: packaging C interpreter
Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
> I use and am interested in packaging the C interpreter
> http://www.linuxbox.com/tiki/node/149
> 1. Its not under GPL but a 'creative licence'
>From the homepage, and the source, this 'creative license' appears to be
the Artistic License, used by, for example, Perl. I do not think that
will be a problem.
> 2. It build does not use autotools but make with small edits. I guess I
> could try putting it under autotools
Please don't do that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not using
autotools. If minor edits is all the upstream build system needs, doing
that is far less invasive than replacing the whole build system.
Especially as there is no upstream to send the autotoolsification to,
there is absolutely no need to do such an invasive change.
> 3. Its an old project
Now this is a bigger isse: with no upstream, possible bugs are all yours
to fix. Are you willing and capable of acting as if you were the
upstream author?
> I still believe that for many students C is still a first language and
> therefore having an interpreter to study would greatly help them up their
> learning curve
And this is another issue: why would a C interpreter help in any way? We
already have battle-proven C compilers, which students will be exposed
to anyway, since if they work under unix, chances are, they'll use gcc
or clang anyway.
I do not think a C interpreter adds any value, I'm afraid. Granted, it's
code may be easier to understand than any other C compilers, but you
don't need to study a compiler to understand the language. Especially
not if its your first language.
--
|8]
Reply to: