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.
Mmm.
> 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 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: