lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Karman <>
Subject Re: [Lucy] Monolithic Charmonizer files
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:43:06 GMT
Marvin Humphrey wrote on 1/5/10 9:21 PM:
> 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
>     "hello_world.c".
>   * 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
> future.

ok, I buy the "it makes the build architecture simpler, lessening the barrier to 
entry and increasing the immediate-hacking-gratification-factor" argument.

Peter Karman  .  .

View raw message