[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: patch - add an ocaml-interp binary package

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:43:28AM -0800, David Fox wrote:
> The least important reason is size.  We are creating lots of small 
> scripts, such as those you find in /etc/init.d, as part of our hardware 
> detection/configuration system.  When we byte-compile these scripts, 
> they end up at about 400 to 500 k, which can add up.


> The more important reason is the ease with which people can modify these 
> scripts, particularly when you are trying to fix a mis-configured 
> system.  For people who are not really interested in programming, but 
> are just trying to get something to work, editing and running a script 
> is quite a bit easier than finding and downloading the source (which 
> maybe you can't do at all if your network isn't working) editing it, 
> building it, installing it.  Granted, for most people, editing a script 
> is something they simply will not do.  For a few others, building from 
> source is just fine.  But there are some people whose input is important 
> to us who fall between these two categories.  They have lots of energy 
> and intelligence, but they come from a world of GUI's and don't have the 
> Unix background we sometimes take for granted.  If you point them to a 
> script and tell them "try some different values here and here" they will 
> go at it until it works.
> For myself, it is partly an aesthetic thing.  Whenever practical, when 
> efficiency is not an issue, I like to distribute software in the least 
> obfuscated way, and put as few barriers as possible between the code and 
> the (hapless?) reader.

Ok, you sort of convinced me. I would like the opinion of the other
ocaml maintainers before i do that, in case there is something i may
miss that they do not.

That said, i could make a ocaml-interpreter package, which would be
provided, replaced and conflicted by the ocaml package. What do you
think of that ?


Sven Luther

Reply to: