Parrot "standard libraries"

James E Keenan jkeen at
Thu Jul 30 11:07:28 UTC 2009

Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> --------
> TT #593 states that we should expand our current set of "standard
> libraries" and improve the ones we currently have (curses, OpenGL,
> PostgreSQL, SDL, etc.).
> During the most recent #parrotsketch, Allison pointed out that this
> umbrella ticket needs to be broken into separate tickets, one for each
> current library and one for each new library we want to add.  We can
> then schedule the individual tickets (and any prerequisites) over the
> next several releases.  We need to decide which new libraries we want to
> provide, and what Parrot features they will require.


Thanks for this very well prepared discussion of the library issues. 
Two points:

1.  Discussion of the benefits of adding any particular library to our 
"standard set" should also include any disadvantages or risks that that 
addition may pose.  Potential downsides would include:  More complexity 
in configuration?  Slows down the executables?  Bigger memory footprint?

Perhaps we should set some minimum criterion of benefits over risks that 
a library would have to meet before it is considered a standard part of 
this virtual machine.

2.  And if we were to develop such a benefit/risk criterion, we should 
probably apply it to the libraries for which we *already* probe during 
the 'config::auto' steps.  Most of those steps were added before I 
joined the Parrot project.  The fact that we probe for them indicates 
that at some point in the past someone (with a commit bit) made a case 
for including them, but what risks they might entail and whether they 
bring a net benefit to Parrot I simply cannot say.


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list