lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [Lucy] Monolithic Charmonizer files
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:21:02 GMT
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:21:25PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:

> Where's the win in consolidating into a single .c file? 

  * Building Charmonizer becomes as straightforward as compiling
  * We don't have to maintain multiple Makefiles to get Charmonizer to build
    successfully on different platforms.
  * I think Charmonizer would work well structured as a single file, because
    it's a relatively straightforward procedural library -- as opposed to a
    large OO project which needs strong modularization.

> I.e., why would I want to build Charmonizer as a standalone entity?

Right now, just for the sake of hacking on Charmonizer in isolation.  It's a
little weird that in order to build Charmonizer, you need the build script for
Lucy's Perl bindings -- that threw off Nate.

> Or put another way, how does this help us get to Lucy 1.0?

I've been trying to use feedback supplied by you and Nate to make Charmonizer
as easy to grok as possible.  We get to 1.0 faster because making Charmonizer
in particular and Lucy in general as simple as possible makes it easier for
you and Nate to contribute now, and easier for others to contribute in the

Marvin Humphrey

View raw message