 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Thomas Lauer wrote:
[snip]2008/9/12 KHMan <keinhong@gmail.com>:[...] IMHO, tcc is for people who don't mind hitting a corner case and have the program blow up.Whether the new version of TCC is enough to alleviate these concerns, I honestly don't know.TCC has always been pretty stable for me. The main problems are the diabolical diagnostics and the lack of documentation. But with some experience, it is really not too bad.
For tcc, I've seen a lot of small patches to fix language behaviour in the past year. Many of these were sent in by developers. Yes, much of it works fine. But pure users wouldn't know what hit them if they encounter broken behaviour. Plus, anyone who fixes things on tcc still needs to run the gauntlet of its comatose community. Unless tcc is in regular use in a few applications, then I would consider it (borrowing a phrase from David Given) experimental software.
If LfW is advertised as something that "just works", then I must speak against promoting a Lua binding of tcc to pure users, which LfW is supposed to be suitable for. I'm not dissuading such a module from getting into the hands of experienced developers, but most people who do scripting wouldn't really have a need for such a module. Perl, Python, etc. does fine without an equivalent module.
My point is that a Lua binding for tcc should be an add-on module for LfW, so I urge caution rather than rushing to aggregate all things into LfW. Well, now that we've traded opinions, I won't say anything further. :-)
[snipped]
-- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia